[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

[dm-devel] Re: dm snapshot: stop merging using a completion




On Sun, 6 Dec 2009, Mike Snitzer wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 05 2009 at  9:01pm -0500,
> Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka redhat com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > 
> > > Switch stop_merge() from using a busy loop to a completion event.
> > > 
> > > stop_merge() now requests merging be shutdown using the
> > > 'merge_completion' pointer (instead of the 'merge_shutdown' flag).  This
> > > is accomplished by testing if 'merge_completion' is not NULL in
> > > snapshot_merge_process().  stop_merge() allocates its completion on the
> > > stack and assigns it to the 'merge_completion' pointer in the snapshot.
> > > 'merge_completion' is protected by the snapshot's lock.
> > > 
> > > Also changed the 'merge_running' flag from int to atomic_t.
> > 
> > No, there's a bug:
> > 
> > >  static void stop_merge(struct dm_snapshot *s)
> > >  {
> > > -	while (s->merge_running) {
> > > -		s->merge_shutdown = 1;
> > > -		msleep(1);
> > > +	DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(merge_stopped);
> > > +	if (atomic_read(&s->merge_running)) {
> > 
> > --- if the merge stops exactly at this point (because it gets finished or 
> > because of an i/o error), we are waiting for a completion that will be 
> > never signalled.
> 
> Yes, valid point.  But for this rare corner case we could just use
> wait_for_completion_timeout() with a fairly large timeout; like 30 sec?
> That actually isn't a great option (racey)...
> 
> How about if the 'shut:' code paths also checked for s->merge_completion
> and complete() if it is not NULL?  Which means that check and related
> complete() code would become a function.
> 
> > > +		down_write(&s->lock);
> > > +		s->merge_completion = &merge_stopped;
> > > +		up_write(&s->lock);
> > > +		wait_for_completion(&merge_stopped);
> > >  	}
> > > -	s->merge_shutdown = 0;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  /*
> > 
> > For Alasdair: do you get the problem? If I write it with msleep() 
> > correctly, you keep on complaining how unclean it is --- if it is written 
> > with completions and it is wrong (because they are just harder to use 
> > correctly than simple variables and msleep), you tend to support it. Now 
> > you see in practice how complex constructs tend to trigger bugs.
> > 
> > Mike: I thought that the completion would be in struct dm_snapshot. But 
> > maybe, try it with wait_on_bit / wake_up_bit / test_bit / set_bit etc., it 
> > may be easier than completions.
> 
> I can look at it; but I think using a completion can work.
> 
> Mike

Here it is with bits:

---

Use bits instead of variables.

Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka redhat com>

---
 drivers/md/dm-snap.c |   39 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6.32-devel/drivers/md/dm-snap.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.32-devel.orig/drivers/md/dm-snap.c	2009-12-07 11:37:53.000000000 +0100
+++ linux-2.6.32-devel/drivers/md/dm-snap.c	2009-12-07 11:58:38.000000000 +0100
@@ -102,12 +102,14 @@ struct dm_snapshot {
 	spinlock_t tracked_chunk_lock;
 	struct hlist_head tracked_chunk_hash[DM_TRACKED_CHUNK_HASH_SIZE];
 
+	unsigned long bits;
+
 	/* Merge operation is in progress */
-	int merge_running;
+#define MERGE_RUNNING		0
 
 	/* It is requested to shut down merging */
 	/* Cleared back to 0 when the merging is stopped */
-	int merge_shutdown;
+#define SHUTDOWN_MERGE		1
 
 	/* Merging this area --- block any writes */
 	chunk_t merge_write_interlock;
@@ -762,8 +764,8 @@ static void snapshot_merge_process(struc
 	int must_wait;
 	struct dm_io_region src, dest;
 
-	BUG_ON(!s->merge_running);
-	if (s->merge_shutdown)
+	BUG_ON(!test_bit(MERGE_RUNNING, &s->bits));
+	if (unlikely(test_bit(SHUTDOWN_MERGE, &s->bits)))
 		goto shut;
 
 	if (!s->valid) {
@@ -823,7 +825,9 @@ test_again:
 	return;
 
 shut:
-	s->merge_running = 0;
+	clear_bit_unlock(MERGE_RUNNING, &s->bits);
+	smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
+	wake_up_bit(&s->bits, MERGE_RUNNING);
 }
 
 /* This function drops s->lock */
@@ -904,15 +908,21 @@ static void merge_callback(int read_err,
 shut:
 	down_write(&s->lock);
 	release_write_interlock(s, 1);
-	s->merge_running = 0;
+	clear_bit_unlock(MERGE_RUNNING, &s->bits);
+	smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
+	wake_up_bit(&s->bits, MERGE_RUNNING);
 }
 
 static void start_merge(struct dm_snapshot *s)
 {
-	if (!s->merge_running && !s->merge_shutdown) {
-		s->merge_running = 1;
+	if (!test_and_set_bit(MERGE_RUNNING, &s->bits))
 		snapshot_merge_process(s);
-	}
+}
+
+static int wait_schedule(void *ptr)
+{
+	schedule();
+	return 0;
 }
 
 /*
@@ -920,11 +930,9 @@ static void start_merge(struct dm_snapsh
  */
 static void stop_merge(struct dm_snapshot *s)
 {
-	while (s->merge_running) {
-		s->merge_shutdown = 1;
-		msleep(1);
-	}
-	s->merge_shutdown = 0;
+	set_bit(SHUTDOWN_MERGE, &s->bits);
+	wait_on_bit(&s->bits, MERGE_RUNNING, wait_schedule, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
+	clear_bit(SHUTDOWN_MERGE, &s->bits);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -991,8 +999,7 @@ static int snapshot_ctr(struct dm_target
 	init_rwsem(&s->lock);
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&s->list);
 	spin_lock_init(&s->pe_lock);
-	s->merge_running = 0;
-	s->merge_shutdown = 0;
+	s->bits = 0;
 	s->merge_write_interlock = 0;
 	s->merge_write_interlock_n = 0;
 	bio_list_init(&s->merge_write_list);


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]