On Fri, Jan 31, 2020 at 11:38 AM Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Instead of having a counter for outstanding object requests
> check the state and count only those which are not in the final
> state.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/block/rbd.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/rbd.c b/drivers/block/rbd.c
> index b708f5ecda07..a6c95b6e9c0c 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/rbd.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/rbd.c
> @@ -350,7 +350,7 @@ struct rbd_img_request {
> struct mutex object_mutex;
>
> struct mutex state_mutex;
> - struct pending_result pending;
> + int pending_result;
> struct work_struct work;
> int work_result;
> struct kref kref;
> @@ -3602,11 +3602,12 @@ static int rbd_img_exclusive_lock(struct rbd_img_request *img_req)
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static void rbd_img_object_requests(struct rbd_img_request *img_req)
> +static int rbd_img_object_requests(struct rbd_img_request *img_req)
> {
> struct rbd_obj_request *obj_req;
> + int num_pending = 0;
>
> - rbd_assert(!img_req->pending.result && !img_req->pending.num_pending);
> + rbd_assert(!img_req->pending_result);
>
> mutex_lock(&img_req->object_mutex);
> for_each_obj_request(img_req, obj_req) {
> @@ -3617,15 +3618,33 @@ static void rbd_img_object_requests(struct rbd_img_request *img_req)
> __func__, obj_req, obj_req->img_request,
> img_req, result);
> if (result) {
> - img_req->pending.result = result;
> - mutex_unlock(&img_req->object_mutex);
> - return;
> + img_req->pending_result = result;
> + break;
> }
> } else {
> - img_req->pending.num_pending++;
> + num_pending++;
> }
> }
> mutex_unlock(&img_req->object_mutex);
> + return num_pending;
> +}
> +
> +static int rbd_img_object_requests_pending(struct rbd_img_request *img_req)
> +{
> + struct rbd_obj_request *obj_req;
> + int num_pending = 0;
> +
> + mutex_lock(&img_req->object_mutex);
> + for_each_obj_request(img_req, obj_req) {
> + if (obj_req->obj_state > 1)
> + num_pending++;
> + else if (WARN_ON(obj_req->obj_state == 1))
> + num_pending++;
> + else if (WARN_ON(obj_req->pending.num_pending))
> + num_pending++;
> + }
> + mutex_unlock(&img_req->object_mutex);
> + return num_pending;
> }
>
> static bool rbd_img_advance(struct rbd_img_request *img_req, int *result)
> @@ -3658,16 +3677,16 @@ static bool rbd_img_advance(struct rbd_img_request *img_req, int *result)
> __rbd_is_lock_owner(rbd_dev));
>
> img_req->state = RBD_IMG_OBJECT_REQUESTS;
> - rbd_img_object_requests(img_req);
> - if (!img_req->pending.num_pending) {
> - *result = img_req->pending.result;
> + if (!rbd_img_object_requests(img_req)) {
> + *result = img_req->pending_result;
> img_req->state = RBD_IMG_DONE;
> return true;
> }
> return false;
> case RBD_IMG_OBJECT_REQUESTS:
> - if (!pending_result_dec(&img_req->pending, result))
> + if (rbd_img_object_requests_pending(img_req))
> return false;
> + *result = img_req->pending_result;
> img_req->state = RBD_IMG_DONE;
> /* fall through */
> case RBD_IMG_DONE:
This is just to be able to drop img_req->state_mutex in patch 11,
right?
Thanks,
Ilya
