Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755472Ab1DKLEa (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:04:30 -0400 Received: from mx1.fusionio.com ([64.244.102.30]:59223 "EHLO mx1.fusionio.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754811Ab1DKLE3 (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Apr 2011 07:04:29 -0400 X-ASG-Debug-ID: 1302519868-03d6a5652c87a70001-xx1T2L X-Barracuda-Envelope-From: JAxboe@fusionio.com Message-ID: <4DA2E03A.2080607@fusionio.com> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2011 13:04:26 +0200 From: Jens Axboe MIME-Version: 1.0 To: NeilBrown CC: Mike Snitzer , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "hch@infradead.org" , "dm-devel@redhat.com" , "linux-raid@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/10] block: remove per-queue plugging References: <1295659049-2688-1-git-send-email-jaxboe@fusionio.com> <1295659049-2688-6-git-send-email-jaxboe@fusionio.com> <20110303221353.GA10366@redhat.com> <4D761E0D.8050200@fusionio.com> <20110308202100.GA31744@redhat.com> <4D76912C.9040705@fusionio.com> <20110308220526.GA393@redhat.com> <20110310005810.GA17911@redhat.com> <20110405130541.6c2b5f86@notabene.brown> <20110411145022.710c30e9@notabene.brown> <4DA2C7BE.6060804@fusionio.com> <20110411205928.13915719@notabene.brown> X-ASG-Orig-Subj: Re: [PATCH 05/10] block: remove per-queue plugging In-Reply-To: <20110411205928.13915719@notabene.brown> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Barracuda-Connect: mail1.int.fusionio.com[10.101.1.21] X-Barracuda-Start-Time: 1302519868 X-Barracuda-URL: http://10.101.1.180:8000/cgi-mod/mark.cgi X-Barracuda-Spam-Score: 0.00 X-Barracuda-Spam-Status: No, SCORE=0.00 using per-user scores of TAG_LEVEL=1000.0 QUARANTINE_LEVEL=1000.0 KILL_LEVEL=9.0 tests= X-Barracuda-Spam-Report: Code version 3.2, rules version 3.2.2.60536 Rule breakdown below pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 5593 Lines: 153 On 2011-04-11 12:59, NeilBrown wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:19:58 +0200 Jens Axboe wrote: > >> On 2011-04-11 06:50, NeilBrown wrote: > >>> The only explanation I can come up with is that very occasionally schedule on >>> 2 separate cpus calls blk_flush_plug for the same task. I don't understand >>> the scheduler nearly well enough to know if or how that can happen. >>> However with this patch in place I can write to a RAID1 constantly for half >>> an hour, and without it, the write rarely lasts for 3 minutes. >> >> Or perhaps if the request_fn blocks, that would be problematic. So the >> patch is likely a good idea even for that case. >> >> I'll merge it, changing it to list_splice_init() as I think that would >> be more clear. > > OK - though I'm not 100% the patch fixes the problem - just that it hides the > symptom for me. > I might try instrumenting the code a bit more and see if I can find exactly > where it is re-entering flush_plug_list - as that seems to be what is > happening. It's definitely a good thing to add, to avoid the list fudging on schedule. Whether it's your exact problem, I can't tell. > And yeah - list_split_init is probably better. I just never remember exactly > what list_split means and have to look it up every time, where as > list_add/list_del are very clear to me. splice, no split :-) >>> From 687b189c02276887dd7d5b87a817da9f67ed3c2c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >>> From: NeilBrown >>> Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2011 13:16:59 +1000 >>> Subject: [PATCH] Enhance new plugging support to support general callbacks. >>> >>> md/raid requires an unplug callback, but as it does not uses >>> requests the current code cannot provide one. >>> >>> So allow arbitrary callbacks to be attached to the blk_plug. >>> >>> Cc: Jens Axboe >>> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown >>> --- >>> block/blk-core.c | 13 +++++++++++++ >>> include/linux/blkdev.h | 7 ++++++- >>> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c >>> index 725091d..273d60b 100644 >>> --- a/block/blk-core.c >>> +++ b/block/blk-core.c >>> @@ -2644,6 +2644,7 @@ void blk_start_plug(struct blk_plug *plug) >>> >>> plug->magic = PLUG_MAGIC; >>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&plug->list); >>> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&plug->cb_list); >>> plug->should_sort = 0; >>> >>> /* >>> @@ -2717,9 +2718,21 @@ static void flush_plug_list(struct blk_plug *plug) >>> local_irq_restore(flags); >>> } >>> >>> +static void flush_plug_callbacks(struct blk_plug *plug) >>> +{ >>> + while (!list_empty(&plug->cb_list)) { >>> + struct blk_plug_cb *cb = list_first_entry(&plug->cb_list, >>> + struct blk_plug_cb, >>> + list); >>> + list_del(&cb->list); >>> + cb->callback(cb); >>> + } >>> +} >>> + >>> static void __blk_finish_plug(struct task_struct *tsk, struct blk_plug *plug) >>> { >>> flush_plug_list(plug); >>> + flush_plug_callbacks(plug); >>> >>> if (plug == tsk->plug) >>> tsk->plug = NULL; >>> diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h >>> index 32176cc..3e5e604 100644 >>> --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h >>> +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h >>> @@ -857,8 +857,13 @@ extern void blk_put_queue(struct request_queue *); >>> struct blk_plug { >>> unsigned long magic; >>> struct list_head list; >>> + struct list_head cb_list; >>> unsigned int should_sort; >>> }; >>> +struct blk_plug_cb { >>> + struct list_head list; >>> + void (*callback)(struct blk_plug_cb *); >>> +}; >>> >>> extern void blk_start_plug(struct blk_plug *); >>> extern void blk_finish_plug(struct blk_plug *); >>> @@ -876,7 +881,7 @@ static inline bool blk_needs_flush_plug(struct task_struct *tsk) >>> { >>> struct blk_plug *plug = tsk->plug; >>> >>> - return plug && !list_empty(&plug->list); >>> + return plug && (!list_empty(&plug->list) || !list_empty(&plug->cb_list)); >>> } >>> >>> /* >> >> Maybe I'm missing something, but why do you need those callbacks? If >> it's to use plugging yourself, perhaps we can just ensure that those >> don't get assigned in the task - so it would be have to used with care. >> >> It's not that I disagree to these callbacks, I just want to ensure I >> understand why you need them. >> > > I'm sure one of us is missing something (probably both) but I'm not > sure what. > > The callback is central. > > It is simply to use plugging in md. > Just like blk-core, md will notice that a blk_plug is active and will put > requests aside. I then need something to call in to md when blk_finish_plug But this is done in __make_request(), so md devices should not be affected at all. This is the part of your explanation that I do not connect with the code. If md itself is putting things on the plug list, why is it doing that? > is called so that put-aside requests can be released. > As md can be built as a module, that call must be a call-back of some sort. > blk-core doesn't need to register blk_plug_flush because that is never in a > module, so it can be called directly. But the md equivalent could be in a > module, so I need to be able to register a call back. > > Does that help? Not really. Is the problem that _you_ would like to stash things aside, not the fact that __make_request() puts things on a task plug list? -- Jens Axboe -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/