linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] 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]

Date:   Mon, 19 Sep 2022 18:28:29 +0800
From:   Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@...ux.dev>
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>, song@...nel.org,
        logang@...tatee.com, pmenzel@...gen.mpg.de
Cc:     linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        yi.zhang@...wei.com,
        "yukuai3@...wei.com >> yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/5] md/raid10: convert resync_lock to use seqlock



On 9/19/22 9:08 AM, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 在 2022/09/18 19:36, Guoqing Jiang 写道:
>>
>>
>> On 9/16/22 7:34 PM, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>>>
>>> Currently, wait_barrier() will hold 'resync_lock' to read 
>>> 'conf->barrier',
>>> and io can't be dispatched until 'barrier' is dropped.
>>>
>>> Since holding the 'barrier' is not common, convert 'resync_lock' to use
>>> seqlock so that holding lock can be avoided in fast path.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>>> ---
>>>   drivers/md/raid10.c | 87 
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
>>>   drivers/md/raid10.h |  2 +-
>>>   2 files changed, 59 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/raid10.c b/drivers/md/raid10.c
>>> index 9a28abd19709..2daa7d57034c 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/md/raid10.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/md/raid10.c
>>> @@ -79,6 +79,21 @@ static void end_reshape(struct r10conf *conf);
>>>   #include "raid1-10.c"
>>> +#define NULL_CMD
>>> +#define cmd_before(conf, cmd) \
>>> +    do { \
>>> +        write_sequnlock_irq(&(conf)->resync_lock); \
>>> +        cmd; \
>>> +    } while (0)
>>> +#define cmd_after(conf) write_seqlock_irq(&(conf)->resync_lock)
>>
>> The two is not paired well given only cmd_before needs the 'cmd'.
>
> May be should I just remove cmd_after?

I'd remove it but just my personal flavor.

>>
>>> +
>>> +#define wait_event_barrier_cmd(conf, cond, cmd) \
>>> +    wait_event_cmd((conf)->wait_barrier, cond, cmd_before(conf, 
>>> cmd), \
>>> +               cmd_after(conf))
>>> +
>>> +#define wait_event_barrier(conf, cond) \
>>> +    wait_event_barrier_cmd(conf, cond, NULL_CMD)
>>
>> What is the issue without define NULL_CMD?
>>
>
> Checkpatch will complain this:
>
> ERROR: space prohibited before that close parenthesis ')'
> #38: FILE: drivers/md/raid10.c:94:
> +       wait_event_barrier_cmd(conf, cond, )
>
> total: 1 errors, 0 warnings, 169 lines checked

Hmm, freeze_array has a different usage for it, so two cmds before sleep
and one cmd after sleep, perhaps it is the best way for now.

Thanks,
Guoqing