Hi,
在 2022/11/10 19:16, Jan Kara 写道:
Hi!
On Thu 10-11-22 17:42:49, Yu Kuai wrote:
在 2022/11/06 7:10, Gabriel Krisman Bertazi 写道:
+void sbitmap_queue_wake_up(struct sbitmap_queue *sbq, int nr)
{
- struct sbq_wait_state *ws;
- unsigned int wake_batch;
- int wait_cnt, cur, sub;
- bool ret;
+ unsigned int wake_batch = READ_ONCE(sbq->wake_batch);
+ struct sbq_wait_state *ws = NULL;
+ unsigned int wakeups;
- if (*nr <= 0)
- return false;
+ if (!atomic_read(&sbq->ws_active))
+ return;
- ws = sbq_wake_ptr(sbq);
- if (!ws)
- return false;
+ atomic_add(nr, &sbq->completion_cnt);
+ wakeups = atomic_read(&sbq->wakeup_cnt);
- cur = atomic_read(&ws->wait_cnt);
do {
- /*
- * For concurrent callers of this, callers should call this
- * function again to wakeup a new batch on a different 'ws'.
- */
- if (cur == 0)
- return true;
- sub = min(*nr, cur);
- wait_cnt = cur - sub;
- } while (!atomic_try_cmpxchg(&ws->wait_cnt, &cur, wait_cnt));
-
- /*
- * If we decremented queue without waiters, retry to avoid lost
- * wakeups.
- */
- if (wait_cnt > 0)
- return !waitqueue_active(&ws->wait);
+ if (atomic_read(&sbq->completion_cnt) - wakeups < wake_batch)
+ return;
Should it be considered that completion_cnt overflow and becomes
negtive?
Yes, the counters can (and will) certainly overflow but since we only care
about (completion_cnt - wakeups), we should be fine - this number is always
sane (and relatively small) and in the kernel we do compile with signed
overflows being well defined.
I'm worried about this: for example, the extreme scenaro that there
is only one tag, currently there are only one infight rq and one thread
is waiting for tag. When the infight rq complete, if 'completion_cnt'
overflow to negative, then 'atomic_read(&sbq->completion_cnt) - wakeups
< wake_batch' will be passed unexpected, then will the thread never be
woken up if there are no new io issued ?
Thanks,
Kuai
Honza
