On 05/22/2012 08:58 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
snip
>
> Hi Brian - here's kind of what I was thinking when we were talking
> on IRC. basically we move all the idling logic into xfsaild() to
> keep it out of xfsaild_push(), and make sure we only idle on an
> empty AIL when we haven't raced with a target update.
>
> So, I was thinking that we add a previous target variable to the
> xfs_ail structure. Then xfsaild would become something like:
>
>
> while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
>
> spin_lock(&ailp->xa_lock);
> __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>
> /* barrier matches the xa_target update in xfs_ail_push() */
> smp_rmb();
> if (!xfs_ail_min(ailp) && ailp->xa_target == ailp->xa_prev_target) {
Ok... IIUC, two things can happen here: 1.) we either detect an xa_target update and continue on or 2.) if an _ail_push() occurs any time between now and when we schedule out, it will issue the wakeup successfully because we've already set the task state above (thus avoiding the race).
> /* empty ail, not change to push target - idle */
> spin_unlock(&ailp->xa_lock);
> schedule();
> tout = 0;
> }
> spin_unlock(&ailp->xa_lock);
>
> if (tout) {
> /* more work to do soon */
> schedule_timeout(msecs_to_jiffies(tout));
> }
> __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>
> try_to_freeze();
>
> tout = xfsaild_push(ailp);
> }
>
> And in xfsaild_push(), move where we sample the push target to before the cursor
> setup, and keep a snapshot of it:
>
> /* barrier matches the xa_target update in xfs_ail_push() */
> smp_rmb();
> target = ailp->xa_target;
> ailp->xa_prev_target = target;
>
The rest is pretty clear...
> This means we do not idle if a new push target was set while we were pushing,
> even if we emptied the AIL (call it paranoia!).
>
Sounds reasonable. It looks like the only place we update the push target corresponds to a wake anyway, so this is probably not a departure from intended behavior.
> We can avoid the returning of a zero timeout from xfsaild_push, too,
> because the idling is not based on the state that we return from the
> push. Hence we always will return a 10, 20 or 50ms timeout and we
> can avoid complicating xfsaild_push logic with idling logic. i.e.
> the logic that is there right now should not need modification...
>
> Finally, rather than calling wake_up_process() in the
> xfs_ail_push*() functions, call wake_up(&ailp->xa_idle); There can
> only be one thread sleeping on that (the xfsaild) so there is no
> need to use the wake_up_all() variant...
>
> FWIW, you might be able to do this without the idle wait queue and
> just use wake_up_process() -
>
Ok... I'll look into using a wait queue once I have the basics working as is and put the whole thing through my reproducer. Thanks again!
Brian
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
