On Thu, May 28 2009, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > Looking into this, it seems a bit complex with all that on_stack, sync /
> > > nosync thing. Wouldn't a simple refcounting scheme be more clear? Alloc /
> > > init_work_on_stack gets a reference from bdi_work, queue_work gets another
> > > reference passed later to flusher thread. We drop the reference when we
> > > leave bdi_start_writeback() and when flusher thread is done with the work.
> > > When refcount hits zero, work struct is freed (when work is on stack, we
> > > just never drop the last reference)...
> >
> > It wouldn't change the complexity of the stack vs non-stack at all,
> > since you have to do the same checks for when it's safe to proceed. And
> > having the single bit there with the hash bit wait queues makes that bit
> > easier.
> I think it would be simpler. Look:
> static void bdi_work_free(struct rcu_head *head)
> {
> struct bdi_work *work = container_of(head, struct bdi_work, rcu_head);
>
> kfree(work);
> }
>
> static void bdi_put_work(struct bdi_work *work)
> {
> if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&work->count, 1))
> call_rcu(&work->rcu_head, bdi_work_free);
> }
>
> static void wb_work_complete(struct bdi_work *work)
> {
> bdi_work_clear(work);
> bdi_put_work(work);
> }
>
> void bdi_start_writeback(...)
> {
> ...
> if (must_wait || work == &work_stack)
> bdi_wait_on_work_clear(work);
> if (work != &work_stack)
> bdi_put_work(work);
> }
>
> IMO much easier to read...
And doesn't work, since you cannot exit after clearing the on-stack work
before before rcu is quisced. The bdi_work could be browseable by other
threads under rcu_read_lock(), just like you defer the kfree(), you have
to defer the bdi_work_clear() for on-stack work.
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
