Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> writes:
> Hi Dmitry!
>
> Some spelling fixes below:
>
> On Tue 19-07-16 16:30:32, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
>> ext4lazyinit is global thread. This thread performs itable initalization
>> under
> ^^ li_list_mtx mutex.
>
>> It basically does followes:
> ^^^^ following
>
>> ext4_lazyinit_thread
>> ->mutex_lock(&eli->li_list_mtx);
>> ->ext4_run_li_request(elr)
>> ->ext4_init_inode_table-> Do a lot of IO if list is large
> ^^ the
>
>> And when new mounts/umount arrives they have to block on ->li_list_mtx
> ^^^^ mount ^^ arrive
>
>> because lazy_thread holds it during full walk procedure.
>> ext4_fill_super
>> ->ext4_register_li_request
>> ->mutex_lock(&ext4_li_info->li_list_mtx);
>> ->list_add(&elr->lr_request, &ext4_li_info >li_request_list);
>> In my case mount takes 40minutes on server with 36 * 4Tb HDD.
>> Convenient user may face this in case of very slow dev ( /dev/mmcblkXXX)
> ^^^ Common?
>
>> Even more. I one of filesystem was frozen lazyinit_thread will simply blocks
> ^^ If ^^^ filesystems block ^^
>
>> on sb_start_write() so other mount/umounts will suck forever.
> ^^ umount ^^^ be stuck
>
>> This patch changes logic like follows:
>> - grap ->s_umount read sem before process new li_request after that it is safe
> ^^ grab ^^ processing ^^^^. After
>> to drop list_mtx because all callers of li_remove_requers are holds ->s_umount
> ^^ li_list_mtx ^^ li_remove_request ^^ holding
>> for write.
>> - li_thread skip frozen SB's
> ^^ skips
>
>> Locking:
>> Locking order is asserted by umout path like follows: s_umount ->li_list_mtx
> ^^ umount
>
>> so the only way to to grab ->s_mount inside li_thread is via down_read_trylock
> ^^^^^ should be just one 'to'
>
>> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> ---
>> fs/ext4/super.c | 53 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
>> index 3822a5a..0ee193f 100644
>> --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
>> +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
>> @@ -2635,7 +2635,6 @@ static int ext4_run_li_request(struct ext4_li_request *elr)
>> sb = elr->lr_super;
>> ngroups = EXT4_SB(sb)->s_groups_count;
>>
>> - sb_start_write(sb);
>> for (group = elr->lr_next_group; group < ngroups; group++) {
>> gdp = ext4_get_group_desc(sb, group, NULL);
>> if (!gdp) {
>> @@ -2662,8 +2661,6 @@ static int ext4_run_li_request(struct ext4_li_request *elr)
>> elr->lr_next_sched = jiffies + elr->lr_timeout;
>> elr->lr_next_group = group + 1;
>> }
>> - sb_end_write(sb);
>> -
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> @@ -2713,9 +2710,9 @@ static struct task_struct *ext4_lazyinit_task;
>> static int ext4_lazyinit_thread(void *arg)
>> {
>> struct ext4_lazy_init *eli = (struct ext4_lazy_init *)arg;
>> - struct list_head *pos, *n;
>> struct ext4_li_request *elr;
>> unsigned long next_wakeup, cur;
>> + LIST_HEAD(request_list);
>>
>> BUG_ON(NULL == eli);
>>
>> @@ -2728,21 +2725,43 @@ cont_thread:
>> mutex_unlock(&eli->li_list_mtx);
>> goto exit_thread;
>> }
>> -
>> - list_for_each_safe(pos, n, &eli->li_request_list) {
>> - elr = list_entry(pos, struct ext4_li_request,
>> - lr_request);
>> -
>> - if (time_after_eq(jiffies, elr->lr_next_sched)) {
>> - if (ext4_run_li_request(elr) != 0) {
>> - /* error, remove the lazy_init job */
>> - ext4_remove_li_request(elr);
>> - continue;
>> + list_splice_init(&eli->li_request_list, &request_list);
>
> Do you really need this temporary list? You could as well iterate through
> the original list if you fetch the next entry after you reacquire
> li_list_mtx and before you remove current entry from the list...
Yes. Probably this will be better. I'll resend updated version.
>
>> + while (!list_empty(&request_list)) {
>> + int err = 0;
>> + int progress = 0;
>> +
>> + elr = list_entry(request_list.next,
>> + struct ext4_li_request, lr_request);
>> + list_move(request_list.next, &eli->li_request_list);
>> + if (time_before(jiffies, elr->lr_next_sched)) {
>> + if (time_before(elr->lr_next_sched, next_wakeup))
>> + next_wakeup = elr->lr_next_sched;
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> + if (down_read_trylock(&elr->lr_super->s_umount)) {
>> + if (sb_start_write_trylock(elr->lr_super)) {
>> + progress = 1;
>> + /* We holds sb->s_umount, sb can not
> ^^ hold
>
> Also we use the following comment style in ext4:
>
> /*
> * text here
> * text here
> */
>
>> + * be removed from the list, it is
>> + * now safe to drop li_list_mtx
>> + */
>> + mutex_unlock(&eli->li_list_mtx);
>> + err = ext4_run_li_request(elr);
>> + sb_end_write(elr->lr_super);
>> + mutex_lock(&eli->li_list_mtx);
>> }
>> + up_read((&elr->lr_super->s_umount));
>> + }
>> + /* error, remove the lazy_init job */
>> + if (err) {
>> + ext4_remove_li_request(elr);
>> + continue;
>> + }
>> + if (!progress) {
>> + elr->lr_next_sched = jiffies +
>> + (prandom_u32()
>> + % (EXT4_DEF_LI_MAX_START_DELAY * HZ));
>> }
>> -
>> - if (time_before(elr->lr_next_sched, next_wakeup))
>> - next_wakeup = elr->lr_next_sched;
>> }
>> mutex_unlock(&eli->li_list_mtx);
>
> Otherwise the patch looks good to me.
>
> Honza
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
> SUSE Labs, CR
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
