linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] lightnvm: add full block direct to the gc list

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <568A567F.5020108@lightnvm.io>
Date:	Mon, 4 Jan 2016 12:24:47 +0100
From:	Matias Bjørling <mb@...htnvm.io>
To:	Wenwei Tao <ww.tao0320@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lightnvm: add full block direct to the gc list

On 01/04/2016 10:54 AM, Wenwei Tao wrote:
> We allocate gcb to queue full block to the gc list,
> but gcb allocation may fail, if that happens, the
> block will not get reclaimed. So add the full block
> direct to the gc list, omit the queuing step.
>
> Signed-off-by: Wenwei Tao <ww.tao0320@...il.com>
> ---
>   drivers/lightnvm/rrpc.c | 47 ++++++++++-------------------------------------
>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/lightnvm/rrpc.c b/drivers/lightnvm/rrpc.c
> index 40b0309..27fb98d 100644
> --- a/drivers/lightnvm/rrpc.c
> +++ b/drivers/lightnvm/rrpc.c
> @@ -475,24 +475,6 @@ static void rrpc_lun_gc(struct work_struct *work)
>   	/* TODO: Hint that request queue can be started again */
>   }
>
> -static void rrpc_gc_queue(struct work_struct *work)
> -{
> -	struct rrpc_block_gc *gcb = container_of(work, struct rrpc_block_gc,
> -									ws_gc);
> -	struct rrpc *rrpc = gcb->rrpc;
> -	struct rrpc_block *rblk = gcb->rblk;
> -	struct nvm_lun *lun = rblk->parent->lun;
> -	struct rrpc_lun *rlun = &rrpc->luns[lun->id - rrpc->lun_offset];
> -
> -	spin_lock(&rlun->lock);
> -	list_add_tail(&rblk->prio, &rlun->prio_list);
> -	spin_unlock(&rlun->lock);
> -
> -	mempool_free(gcb, rrpc->gcb_pool);
> -	pr_debug("nvm: block '%lu' is full, allow GC (sched)\n",
> -							rblk->parent->id);
> -}
> -
>   static const struct block_device_operations rrpc_fops = {
>   	.owner		= THIS_MODULE,
>   };
> @@ -620,39 +602,30 @@ err:
>   	return NULL;
>   }
>
> -static void rrpc_run_gc(struct rrpc *rrpc, struct rrpc_block *rblk)
> -{
> -	struct rrpc_block_gc *gcb;
> -
> -	gcb = mempool_alloc(rrpc->gcb_pool, GFP_ATOMIC);
> -	if (!gcb) {
> -		pr_err("rrpc: unable to queue block for gc.");
> -		return;
> -	}
> -
> -	gcb->rrpc = rrpc;
> -	gcb->rblk = rblk;
> -
> -	INIT_WORK(&gcb->ws_gc, rrpc_gc_queue);
> -	queue_work(rrpc->kgc_wq, &gcb->ws_gc);
> -}
> -
>   static void rrpc_end_io_write(struct rrpc *rrpc, struct rrpc_rq *rrqd,
>   						sector_t laddr, uint8_t npages)
>   {
>   	struct rrpc_addr *p;
>   	struct rrpc_block *rblk;
>   	struct nvm_lun *lun;
> +	struct rrpc_lun *rlun;
>   	int cmnt_size, i;
>
>   	for (i = 0; i < npages; i++) {
>   		p = &rrpc->trans_map[laddr + i];
>   		rblk = p->rblk;
>   		lun = rblk->parent->lun;
> +		rlun = &rrpc->luns[lun->id - rrpc->lun_offset];
>
>   		cmnt_size = atomic_inc_return(&rblk->data_cmnt_size);
> -		if (unlikely(cmnt_size == rrpc->dev->pgs_per_blk))
> -			rrpc_run_gc(rrpc, rblk);
> +		if (unlikely(cmnt_size == rrpc->dev->pgs_per_blk)) {
> +			pr_debug("nvm: block '%lu' is full, allow GC (sched)\n",
> +							rblk->parent->id);
> +			spin_lock(&rlun->lock);

A deadlock might occur, as the lock can be called from interrupt 
context. The other ->rlun usages will have to be converted to 
spinlock_irqsave/spinlock_irqrestore to be valid.

The reason for the queueing is that the ->rlun lock is held for a while 
in rrpc_lun_gc. Therefore, it rather takes the queueing overhead, than 
disable interrupts on the CPU for the duration of the ->prio sorting and 
selection of victim block. My assumptions about this optimization might 
be premature. So I like to be proved wrong.

> +			list_add_tail(&rblk->prio, &rlun->prio_list);
> +			spin_unlock(&rlun->lock);
> +
> +		}
>   	}
>   }
>
>


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/