On 2020/05/06 2:56, Alexey Dobriyan wrote:
> Initialise everything that is not write pointers coming from device or
> faked separatedly.
s/Initialise/Initialize
s/separatedly/separately
>
> More stuff (verification in ZBD mode and ->write_mutex) will be added.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Dobriyan (SK hynix) <adobriyan@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> zbd.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/zbd.c b/zbd.c
> index 2926bae9..df46da42 100644
> --- a/zbd.c
> +++ b/zbd.c
> @@ -351,7 +351,6 @@ static int init_zone_info(struct thread_data *td, struct fio_file *f)
> struct fio_zone_info *p;
> uint64_t zone_size = td->o.zone_size;
> struct zoned_block_device_info *zbd_info = NULL;
> - pthread_mutexattr_t attr;
> int i;
>
> if (zone_size == 0) {
> @@ -372,14 +371,9 @@ static int init_zone_info(struct thread_data *td, struct fio_file *f)
> if (!zbd_info)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> - pthread_mutexattr_init(&attr);
> - pthread_mutexattr_setpshared(&attr, true);
> - pthread_mutex_init(&zbd_info->mutex, &attr);
> - pthread_mutexattr_settype(&attr, PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE);
> zbd_info->refcount = 1;
> p = &zbd_info->zone_info[0];
> for (i = 0; i < nr_zones; i++, p++) {
> - pthread_mutex_init(&p->mutex, &attr);
> p->start = i * zone_size;
> p->wp = p->start + zone_size;
> p->type = ZBD_ZONE_TYPE_SWR;
> @@ -393,7 +387,6 @@ static int init_zone_info(struct thread_data *td, struct fio_file *f)
> f->zbd_info->zone_size_log2 = is_power_of_2(zone_size) ?
> ilog2(zone_size) : 0;
> f->zbd_info->nr_zones = nr_zones;
> - pthread_mutexattr_destroy(&attr);
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -413,12 +406,8 @@ static int parse_zone_info(struct thread_data *td, struct fio_file *f)
> struct fio_zone_info *p;
> uint64_t zone_size, offset;
> struct zoned_block_device_info *zbd_info = NULL;
> - pthread_mutexattr_t attr;
> int i, j, ret = 0;
>
> - pthread_mutexattr_init(&attr);
> - pthread_mutexattr_setpshared(&attr, true);
> -
> zones = calloc(ZBD_REPORT_MAX_ZONES, sizeof(struct zbd_zone));
> if (!zones)
> goto out;
> @@ -452,14 +441,11 @@ static int parse_zone_info(struct thread_data *td, struct fio_file *f)
> ret = -ENOMEM;
> if (!zbd_info)
> goto out;
> - pthread_mutex_init(&zbd_info->mutex, &attr);
> - pthread_mutexattr_settype(&attr, PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE);
> zbd_info->refcount = 1;
> p = &zbd_info->zone_info[0];
> for (offset = 0, j = 0; j < nr_zones;) {
> z = &zones[0];
> for (i = 0; i < nrz; i++, j++, z++, p++) {
> - pthread_mutex_init(&p->mutex, &attr);
> p->start = z->start;
> switch (z->cond) {
> case ZBD_ZONE_COND_NOT_WP:
> @@ -510,7 +496,6 @@ static int parse_zone_info(struct thread_data *td, struct fio_file *f)
> out:
> sfree(zbd_info);
> free(zones);
> - pthread_mutexattr_destroy(&attr);
> return ret;
> }
>
> @@ -521,7 +506,9 @@ out:
> */
> static int zbd_create_zone_info(struct thread_data *td, struct fio_file *f)
> {
> + struct zoned_block_device_info *zbd;
> enum zbd_zoned_model zbd_model;
> + pthread_mutexattr_t attr;
> int ret;
>
> assert(td->o.zone_mode == ZONE_MODE_ZBD);
> @@ -546,11 +533,25 @@ static int zbd_create_zone_info(struct thread_data *td, struct fio_file *f)
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> - if (ret == 0) {
> - f->zbd_info->model = zbd_model;
> - f->zbd_info->max_open_zones = td->o.max_open_zones;
> + if (ret)
> + return ret;
> +
> + zbd = f->zbd_info;
> + zbd->model = zbd_model;
> + zbd->max_open_zones = td->o.max_open_zones;
> +
> + pthread_mutexattr_init(&attr);
> + pthread_mutexattr_setpshared(&attr, true);
> + pthread_mutex_init(&zbd->mutex, &attr);
> + pthread_mutexattr_settype(&attr, PTHREAD_MUTEX_RECURSIVE);
> + for (uint32_t z = 0; z < zbd->nr_zones; z++) {
> + struct fio_zone_info *zi = &zbd->zone_info[z];
> +
> + pthread_mutex_init(&zi->mutex, &attr);
> }
> - return ret;
> + pthread_mutexattr_destroy(&attr);
> +
> + return 0;
> }
>
> void zbd_free_zone_info(struct fio_file *f)
>
On a very large drive (e.g. 20TB SMR), we have in excess of 70000 zones. Having
to loop over all of them again will start to be painful and likely slow down (a
little) startup. And going forward with ever increasing disk capacity, this will
get even worse. So not sure if this patch makes much sense.
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
