Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Fri, 8 Mar 2019 08:38:43 +0100
From:   Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@canonical.com>
To:     Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Cc:     Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>, Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>,
        Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
        Dennis Zhou <dennis@kernel.org>, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] blkcg: prevent priority inversion problem during
 sync()
Message-ID: <20190308073843.GA9732@xps-13>
References: <20190307180834.22008-1-andrea.righi@canonical.com>
 <20190307180834.22008-2-andrea.righi@canonical.com>
 <20190307221051.ruhpp73q6ek2at3d@macbook-pro-91.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190307221051.ruhpp73q6ek2at3d@macbook-pro-91.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 05:10:53PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 07, 2019 at 07:08:32PM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
> > Prevent priority inversion problem when a high-priority blkcg issues a
> > sync() and it is forced to wait the completion of all the writeback I/O
> > generated by any other low-priority blkcg, causing massive latencies to
> > processes that shouldn't be I/O-throttled at all.
> > 
> > The idea is to save a list of blkcg's that are waiting for writeback:
> > every time a sync() is executed the current blkcg is added to the list.
> > 
> > Then, when I/O is throttled, if there's a blkcg waiting for writeback
> > different than the current blkcg, no throttling is applied (we can
> > probably refine this logic later, i.e., a better policy could be to
> > adjust the throttling I/O rate using the blkcg with the highest speed
> > from the list of waiters - priority inheritance, kinda).
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <andrea.righi@canonical.com>
> > ---
> >  block/blk-cgroup.c               | 131 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  block/blk-throttle.c             |  11 ++-
> >  fs/fs-writeback.c                |   5 ++
> >  fs/sync.c                        |   8 +-
> >  include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h |   2 +
> >  include/linux/blk-cgroup.h       |  23 ++++++
> >  mm/backing-dev.c                 |   2 +
> >  7 files changed, 178 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/block/blk-cgroup.c b/block/blk-cgroup.c
> > index 2bed5725aa03..4305e78d1bb2 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-cgroup.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-cgroup.c
> > @@ -1351,6 +1351,137 @@ struct cgroup_subsys io_cgrp_subsys = {
> >  };
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(io_cgrp_subsys);
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK
> > +struct blkcg_wb_sleeper {
> > +	struct backing_dev_info *bdi;
> > +	struct blkcg *blkcg;
> > +	refcount_t refcnt;
> > +	struct list_head node;
> > +};
> > +
> > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(blkcg_wb_sleeper_lock);
> > +static LIST_HEAD(blkcg_wb_sleeper_list);
> > +
> > +static struct blkcg_wb_sleeper *
> > +blkcg_wb_sleeper_find(struct blkcg *blkcg, struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> > +{
> > +	struct blkcg_wb_sleeper *bws;
> > +
> > +	list_for_each_entry(bws, &blkcg_wb_sleeper_list, node)
> > +		if (bws->blkcg == blkcg && bws->bdi == bdi)
> > +			return bws;
> > +	return NULL;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void blkcg_wb_sleeper_add(struct blkcg_wb_sleeper *bws)
> > +{
> > +	list_add(&bws->node, &blkcg_wb_sleeper_list);
> > +}
> > +
> > +static void blkcg_wb_sleeper_del(struct blkcg_wb_sleeper *bws)
> > +{
> > +	list_del_init(&bws->node);
> > +}
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * blkcg_wb_waiters_on_bdi - check for writeback waiters on a block device
> > + * @blkcg: current blkcg cgroup
> > + * @bdi: block device to check
> > + *
> > + * Return true if any other blkcg different than the current one is waiting for
> > + * writeback on the target block device, false otherwise.
> > + */
> > +bool blkcg_wb_waiters_on_bdi(struct blkcg *blkcg, struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> > +{
> > +	struct blkcg_wb_sleeper *bws;
> > +	bool ret = false;
> > +
> > +	spin_lock(&blkcg_wb_sleeper_lock);
> > +	list_for_each_entry(bws, &blkcg_wb_sleeper_list, node)
> > +		if (bws->bdi == bdi && bws->blkcg != blkcg) {
> > +			ret = true;
> > +			break;
> > +		}
> > +	spin_unlock(&blkcg_wb_sleeper_lock);
> > +
> > +	return ret;
> > +}
> 
> No global lock please, add something to the bdi I think?  Also have a fast path
> of

OK, I'll add a list per-bdi and a lock as well.

> 
> if (list_empty(blkcg_wb_sleeper_list))
>    return false;

OK.

> 
> we don't need to be super accurate here.  Thanks,
> 
> Josef

Thanks,
-Andrea