| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20150427101024.2ae8edc1@notabene.brown>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 10:10:24 +1000
From: NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>
To: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] md/raid5: split wait_for_stripe and introduce
wait_for_quiesce
On Fri, 24 Apr 2015 21:39:03 +0800 Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
wrote:
> If I read code correctly, current wait_for_stripe actually has 2 usage:
>
> - wait for there is enough free stripe cache, triggered when
> get_free_stripe() failed. This is what wait_for_stripe intend
> for literally.
>
> - wait for quiesce == 0 or
> active_aligned_reads == 0 && active_stripes == 0
>
> It has nothing to do with wait_for_stripe literally, and releasing
> an active stripe won't actually wake them up. On the contrary, wake_up
> from under this case won't actually wake up the process waiting for
> an free stripe being available.
I disagree. Releasing an active stripe *will* (or *can*) wake up that third
case, as it decrements "active_stripes" which will eventually reach zero.
I don't think your new code will properly wake up a process which is waiting
for "active_stripes == 0".
>
> Hence, we'd better split wait_for_stripe, and here I introduce
> wait_for_quiesce for the second usage. The name may not well taken, or
> even taken wrongly. Feel free to correct me then.
>
> This is also a prepare patch for next patch: make wait_for_stripe
> exclusive.
I think you have this commit description upside down :-)
The real motivation is that you are seeing contention on some spinlock and so
you want to split 'wait_for_stripe' up in to multiple wait_queues so that you
can use exclusive wakeup. As this is the main motivation, it should be
stated first.
Then explain that 'wait_for_stripe' is used to wait for the array to enter or
leave the quiescent state, and also to wait for an available stripe in each
of the hash lists.
So this patch splits the first usage off into a separate wait_queue, and the
next patch will split the second usage into one waitqueue for each hash value.
Then explain just is what is needed for that first step.
When you put it that way around, the patch makes lots of sense.
So: could you please resubmit with the description the right way around, and
with an appropriate wakeup call to ensure raid5_quiesce is woken up when
active_stripes reaches zero?
Thanks,
NeilBrown
>
> Signed-off-by: Yuanhan Liu <yuanhan.liu@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/md/raid5.c | 13 +++++++------
> drivers/md/raid5.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.c b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> index 9716319..b7e385f 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid5.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.c
> @@ -667,7 +667,7 @@ get_active_stripe(struct r5conf *conf, sector_t sector,
> spin_lock_irq(conf->hash_locks + hash);
>
> do {
> - wait_event_lock_irq(conf->wait_for_stripe,
> + wait_event_lock_irq(conf->wait_for_quiesce,
> conf->quiesce == 0 || noquiesce,
> *(conf->hash_locks + hash));
> sh = __find_stripe(conf, sector, conf->generation - previous);
> @@ -4725,7 +4725,7 @@ static void raid5_align_endio(struct bio *bi, int error)
> raid_bi, 0);
> bio_endio(raid_bi, 0);
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&conf->active_aligned_reads))
> - wake_up(&conf->wait_for_stripe);
> + wake_up(&conf->wait_for_quiesce);
> return;
> }
>
> @@ -4820,7 +4820,7 @@ static int chunk_aligned_read(struct mddev *mddev, struct bio * raid_bio)
> align_bi->bi_iter.bi_sector += rdev->data_offset;
>
> spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> - wait_event_lock_irq(conf->wait_for_stripe,
> + wait_event_lock_irq(conf->wait_for_quiesce,
> conf->quiesce == 0,
> conf->device_lock);
> atomic_inc(&conf->active_aligned_reads);
> @@ -5659,7 +5659,7 @@ static int retry_aligned_read(struct r5conf *conf, struct bio *raid_bio)
> bio_endio(raid_bio, 0);
> }
> if (atomic_dec_and_test(&conf->active_aligned_reads))
> - wake_up(&conf->wait_for_stripe);
> + wake_up(&conf->wait_for_quiesce);
> return handled;
> }
>
> @@ -6390,6 +6390,7 @@ static struct r5conf *setup_conf(struct mddev *mddev)
> goto abort;
> spin_lock_init(&conf->device_lock);
> seqcount_init(&conf->gen_lock);
> + init_waitqueue_head(&conf->wait_for_quiesce);
> init_waitqueue_head(&conf->wait_for_stripe);
> init_waitqueue_head(&conf->wait_for_overlap);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&conf->handle_list);
> @@ -7413,7 +7414,7 @@ static void raid5_quiesce(struct mddev *mddev, int state)
> * active stripes can drain
> */
> conf->quiesce = 2;
> - wait_event_cmd(conf->wait_for_stripe,
> + wait_event_cmd(conf->wait_for_quiesce,
> atomic_read(&conf->active_stripes) == 0 &&
> atomic_read(&conf->active_aligned_reads) == 0,
> unlock_all_device_hash_locks_irq(conf),
> @@ -7427,7 +7428,7 @@ static void raid5_quiesce(struct mddev *mddev, int state)
> case 0: /* re-enable writes */
> lock_all_device_hash_locks_irq(conf);
> conf->quiesce = 0;
> - wake_up(&conf->wait_for_stripe);
> + wake_up(&conf->wait_for_quiesce);
> wake_up(&conf->wait_for_overlap);
> unlock_all_device_hash_locks_irq(conf);
> break;
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid5.h b/drivers/md/raid5.h
> index 7dc0dd8..fab53a3 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid5.h
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid5.h
> @@ -508,6 +508,7 @@ struct r5conf {
> struct list_head inactive_list[NR_STRIPE_HASH_LOCKS];
> atomic_t empty_inactive_list_nr;
> struct llist_head released_stripes;
> + wait_queue_head_t wait_for_quiesce;
> wait_queue_head_t wait_for_stripe;
> wait_queue_head_t wait_for_overlap;
> unsigned long cache_state;
Content of type "application/pgp-signature" skipped
Powered by blists - more mailing lists