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: <8dd81e04-0041-63a4-e16f-f92dd8c4930e@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Sat, 3 Sep 2022 14:07:03 +0800
From:   Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        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

Hi,

在 2022/09/03 1:03, Logan Gunthorpe 写道:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2022-09-02 02:14, Yu Kuai wrote:
>> Can you try the following patch? I'm running mdadm tests myself and I
>> didn't see any problems yet.
> 
> Yes, that patch seems to fix the issue.
> 
> However, may I suggest we do this without trying to introduce new
> helpers into wait.h? I suspect that could result in a fair amount of
> bike shedding and delay. wait_event_cmd() is often used in situations
> where a specific lock type doesn't have a helper.

Yes, that sounds good.
> 
> My stab at it is in a diff below which also fixes the bug.
> 
> I'd also recommend somebody clean up that nasty condition in
> wait_barrier(). Put it into an appropriately named function
> with some comments. As is, it is pretty much unreadable.

Now we're at it, I can take a look.

Thanks,
Kuai
> 
> Logan
> 
> --
> 
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid10.c b/drivers/md/raid10.c
> index 0e3229ee1ebc..ae297bc870bd 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/raid10.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c
> @@ -934,22 +934,26 @@ static void flush_pending_writes(struct r10conf *conf)
>    *    lower_barrier when the particular background IO completes.
>    */
>   
> +#define wait_event_barrier_cmd(conf, cond, cmd) \
> +	wait_event_cmd((conf)->wait_barrier, cond, \
> +		       write_sequnlock_irq(&(conf)->resync_lock); cmd, \
> +		       write_seqlock_irq(&(conf)->resync_lock))
> +#define wait_event_barrier(conf, cond) wait_event_barrier_cmd(conf, cond, )
> +
>   static void raise_barrier(struct r10conf *conf, int force)
>   {
>   	write_seqlock_irq(&conf->resync_lock);
>   	BUG_ON(force && !conf->barrier);
>   
>   	/* Wait until no block IO is waiting (unless 'force') */
> -	wait_event_lock_irq(conf->wait_barrier, force || !conf->nr_waiting,
> -			    conf->resync_lock.lock);
> +	wait_event_barrier(conf, force || !conf->nr_waiting);
>   
>   	/* block any new IO from starting */
>   	WRITE_ONCE(conf->barrier, conf->barrier + 1);
>   
>   	/* Now wait for all pending IO to complete */
> -	wait_event_lock_irq(conf->wait_barrier,
> -			    !atomic_read(&conf->nr_pending) && conf->barrier < RESYNC_DEPTH,
> -			    conf->resync_lock.lock);
> +	wait_event_barrier(conf, !atomic_read(&conf->nr_pending) &&
> +			   conf->barrier < RESYNC_DEPTH);
>   
>   	write_sequnlock_irq(&conf->resync_lock);
>   }
> @@ -1007,20 +1011,19 @@ static bool wait_barrier(struct r10conf *conf, bool nowait)
>   			ret = false;
>   		} else {
>   			raid10_log(conf->mddev, "wait barrier");
> -			wait_event_lock_irq(conf->wait_barrier,
> -					    !conf->barrier ||
> -					    (atomic_read(&conf->nr_pending) &&
> -					     bio_list &&
> -					     (!bio_list_empty(&bio_list[0]) ||
> -					      !bio_list_empty(&bio_list[1]))) ||
> +			wait_event_barrier(conf,
> +					   !conf->barrier ||
> +					   (atomic_read(&conf->nr_pending) &&
> +					    bio_list &&
> +					    (!bio_list_empty(&bio_list[0]) ||
> +					     !bio_list_empty(&bio_list[1]))) ||
>   					     /* move on if recovery thread is
>   					      * blocked by us
>   					      */
> -					     (conf->mddev->thread->tsk == current &&
> -					      test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING,
> -						       &conf->mddev->recovery) &&
> -					      conf->nr_queued > 0),
> -					    conf->resync_lock.lock);
> +					    (conf->mddev->thread->tsk == current &&
> +					     test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING,
> +					       &conf->mddev->recovery) &&
> +					     conf->nr_queued > 0));
>   		}
>   		conf->nr_waiting--;
>   		if (!conf->nr_waiting)
> @@ -1058,10 +1061,9 @@ static void freeze_array(struct r10conf *conf, int extra)
>   	conf->array_freeze_pending++;
>   	WRITE_ONCE(conf->barrier, conf->barrier + 1);
>   	conf->nr_waiting++;
> -	wait_event_lock_irq_cmd(conf->wait_barrier,
> -				atomic_read(&conf->nr_pending) == conf->nr_queued+extra,
> -				conf->resync_lock.lock,
> -				flush_pending_writes(conf));
> +	wait_event_barrier_cmd(conf,
> +		atomic_read(&conf->nr_pending) == conf->nr_queued+extra,
> +		flush_pending_writes(conf));
>   
>   	conf->array_freeze_pending--;
>   	write_sequnlock_irq(&conf->resync_lock);
> .
>