[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/2] xfs: fix xfsaild hang due to lost wake ups

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 2/2] xfs: fix xfsaild hang due to lost wake ups
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 09:05:05 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20120523005830.GL25351@dastard>
References: <1337704714-50235-1-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> <1337704714-50235-3-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> <20120523005830.GL25351@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120424 Thunderbird/12.0
On 05/22/2012 08:58 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:

> Hi Brian - here's kind of what I was thinking when we were talking
> on IRC. basically we move all the idling logic into xfsaild() to
> keep it out of xfsaild_push(), and make sure we only idle on an
> empty AIL when we haven't raced with a target update.
> So, I was thinking that we add a previous target variable to the
> xfs_ail structure. Then xfsaild would become something like:
>       while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
>               spin_lock(&ailp->xa_lock);
>               __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>               /* barrier matches the xa_target update in xfs_ail_push() */
>               smp_rmb();
>               if (!xfs_ail_min(ailp) && ailp->xa_target == 
> ailp->xa_prev_target) {

Ok... IIUC, two things can happen here: 1.) we either detect an xa_target 
update and continue on or 2.) if an _ail_push() occurs any time between now and 
when we schedule out, it will issue the wakeup successfully because we've 
already set the task state above (thus avoiding the race).

>                       /* empty ail, not change to push target - idle */
>                       spin_unlock(&ailp->xa_lock);
>                       schedule();
>                       tout = 0;
>               }
>               spin_unlock(&ailp->xa_lock);
>               if (tout) {
>                       /* more work to do soon */
>                       schedule_timeout(msecs_to_jiffies(tout));
>               }
>               __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>               try_to_freeze();
>               tout = xfsaild_push(ailp);
>       }
> And in xfsaild_push(), move where we sample the push target to before the 
> cursor
> setup, and keep a snapshot of it:
>       /* barrier matches the xa_target update in xfs_ail_push() */
>       smp_rmb();
>       target = ailp->xa_target;
>       ailp->xa_prev_target = target;

The rest is pretty clear...

> This means we do not idle if a new push target was set while we were pushing,
> even if we emptied the AIL (call it paranoia!).

Sounds reasonable. It looks like the only place we update the push target 
corresponds to a wake anyway, so this is probably not a departure from intended 

> We can avoid the returning of a zero timeout from xfsaild_push, too,
> because the idling is not based on the state that we return from the
> push. Hence we always will return a 10, 20 or 50ms timeout and we
> can avoid complicating xfsaild_push logic with idling logic. i.e.
> the logic that is there right now should not need modification...
> Finally, rather than calling wake_up_process() in the
> xfs_ail_push*() functions, call wake_up(&ailp->xa_idle); There can
> only be one thread sleeping on that (the xfsaild) so there is no
> need to use the wake_up_all() variant...
> FWIW, you might be able to do this without the idle wait queue and
> just use wake_up_process() - 

Ok... I'll look into using a wait queue once I have the basics working as is 
and put the whole thing through my reproducer. Thanks again!


> Cheers,
> Dave.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>