Hello,
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 10:37:36AM -0700, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> @@ -324,13 +342,37 @@ struct bio *bio_alloc_bioset(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nr_iovecs, struct bio_set *bs)
> front_pad = 0;
> inline_vecs = nr_iovecs;
> } else {
> + /*
> + * generic_make_request() converts recursion to iteration; this
> + * means if we're running beneath it, any bios we allocate and
> + * submit will not be submitted (and thus freed) until after we
> + * return.
> + *
> + * This exposes us to a potential deadlock if we allocate
> + * multiple bios from the same bio_set() while running
> + * underneath generic_make_request(). If we were to allocate
> + * multiple bios (say a stacking block driver that was splitting
> + * bios), we would deadlock if we exhausted the mempool's
> + * reserve.
> + *
> + * We solve this, and guarantee forward progress, with a rescuer
> + * workqueue per bio_set. If we go to allocate and there are
> + * bios on current->bio_list, we first try the allocation
> + * without __GFP_WAIT; if that fails, we punt those bios we
> + * would be blocking to the rescuer workqueue before we retry
> + * with the original gfp_flags.
> + */
> +
> + if (current->bio_list && !bio_list_empty(current->bio_list))
> + gfp_mask &= ~__GFP_WAIT;
> +retry:
> p = mempool_alloc(bs->bio_pool, gfp_mask);
> front_pad = bs->front_pad;
> inline_vecs = BIO_INLINE_VECS;
> }
>
> if (unlikely(!p))
> - return NULL;
> + goto err;
>
> bio = p + front_pad;
> bio_init(bio);
> @@ -351,6 +393,19 @@ struct bio *bio_alloc_bioset(gfp_t gfp_mask, int nr_iovecs, struct bio_set *bs)
>
> err_free:
> mempool_free(p, bs->bio_pool);
> +err:
> + if (gfp_mask != saved_gfp) {
> + gfp_mask = saved_gfp;
> +
> + spin_lock(&bs->rescue_lock);
> + bio_list_merge(&bs->rescue_list, current->bio_list);
> + bio_list_init(current->bio_list);
> + spin_unlock(&bs->rescue_lock);
> +
> + queue_work(bs->rescue_workqueue, &bs->rescue_work);
> + goto retry;
> + }
I wonder whether it would be easier to follow if this part is in-line
where retry: is. All that needs to be duplicated is single
mempool_alloc() call, right?
Overall, I *think* this is correct but need to think more about it to
be sure.
Thanks!
--
tejun
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
