On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 15:59 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 04:32:54PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > The current practice of waiting for cache updates by queueing the
> > whole request to be retried has (at least) two problems.
>
> Apologies for the delay!
>
> > 1/ With NFSv4, requests can be quite complex and re-trying a whole
> > request when a latter part fails should only be a last-resort, not a
> > normal practice.
> >
> > 2/ Large requests, and in particular any 'write' request, will not be
> > queued by the current code and doing so would be undesirable.
> >
> > In many cases only a very sort wait is needed before the cache gets
> > valid data.
> >
> > So, providing the underlying transport permits it by setting
> > ->thread_wait,
> > arrange to wait briefly for an upcall to be completed (as reflected in
> > the clearing of CACHE_PENDING).
> > If the short wait was not long enough and CACHE_PENDING is still set,
> > fall back on the old approach.
> >
> > The 'thread_wait' value is set to 5 seconds when there are spare
> > threads, and 1 second when there are no spare threads.
> >
> > These values are probably much higher than needed, but will ensure
> > some forward progress.
>
> This looks fine, and I want to merge it. One mainly superficial
> complaint:
>
> > static int cache_defer_req(struct cache_req *req, struct cache_head *item)
> > {
> > struct cache_deferred_req *dreq, *discard;
> > int hash = DFR_HASH(item);
> > + struct thread_deferred_req sleeper;
> >
> > if (cache_defer_cnt >= DFR_MAX) {
> > /* too much in the cache, randomly drop this one,
> > @@ -510,7 +522,14 @@ static int cache_defer_req(struct cache_req *req, struct cache_head *item)
> > if (net_random()&1)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > }
> > - dreq = req->defer(req);
> > + if (req->thread_wait) {
> > + dreq = &sleeper.handle;
> > + init_waitqueue_head(&sleeper.wait);
> > + dreq->revisit = cache_restart_thread;
> > + } else
> > + dreq = req->defer(req);
> > +
> > + retry:
> > if (dreq == NULL)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > @@ -544,6 +563,29 @@ static int cache_defer_req(struct cache_req *req, struct cache_head *item)
> > cache_revisit_request(item);
> > return -EAGAIN;
> > }
> > +
> > + if (dreq == &sleeper.handle) {
> > + wait_event_interruptible_timeout(
> > + sleeper.wait,
> > + !test_bit(CACHE_PENDING, &item->flags)
> > + || list_empty(&sleeper.handle.hash),
> > + req->thread_wait);
> > + spin_lock(&cache_defer_lock);
> > + if (!list_empty(&sleeper.handle.hash)) {
> > + list_del_init(&sleeper.handle.recent);
> > + list_del_init(&sleeper.handle.hash);
> > + cache_defer_cnt--;
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock(&cache_defer_lock);
> > + if (test_bit(CACHE_PENDING, &item->flags)) {
> > + /* item is still pending, try request
> > + * deferral
> > + */
> > + dreq = req->defer(req);
> > + goto retry;
> > + }
> > + return 0;
> > + }
>
> With this, cache_defer_req is tending towards the long and complicated
> side. It'd probably suffice to do something as simple as moving some of
> the code into helper functions to hide the details.
Couldn't you also simplify things a good deal by just adding a
completion to struct cache_deferred_req, and then letting
cache_defer_req() call wait_for_completion_timeout()?
That's pretty much all we do in fs/nfs/cache_lib.c...
Cheers
Trond
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
