linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next 2/3] md/raid10: convert resync

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: <82f11462-454c-4a5e-d3a2-e71479960eaf@linux.dev>
Date:   Fri, 2 Sep 2022 18:16:44 +0800
From:   Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@...ux.dev>
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>, song@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        yi.zhang@...wei.com, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 2/3] md/raid10: convert resync_lock to use seqlock



On 9/2/22 6:02 PM, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 在 2022/09/02 17:42, Guoqing Jiang 写道:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 8/29/22 9:15 PM, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>> +static bool wait_barrier_nolock(struct r10conf *conf)
>>> +{
>>> +    unsigned int seq = raw_read_seqcount(&conf->resync_lock.seqcount);
>>> +
>>> +    if (seq & 1)
>>> +        return false;
>>> +
>>> +    if (READ_ONCE(conf->barrier))
>>> +        return false;
>>> +
>>> +    atomic_inc(&conf->nr_pending);
>>> +    if (!read_seqcount_retry(&conf->resync_lock.seqcount, seq))
>>
>> I think 'seq' is usually get from read_seqcount_begin.
>
> read_seqcount_begin will loop untill "req & 1" failed, I'm afraid this
> will cause high cpu usage in come cases.
>
> What I try to do here is just try once, and fall back to hold lock and
> wait if failed.

Thanks for the explanation.

I'd suggest to try with read_seqcount_begin/read_seqcount_retry pattern
because it is a common usage in kernel I think, then check whether the
performance drops or not.  Maybe it is related to lockdep issue, but I am
not sure.

Thanks,
Guoqing