>>> Ming Lei <ming....@redhat.com> 2017-6-7 下午 17:26 >>>
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:01:04PM +0800, James Wang wrote:
> This condition check was exist at before commit b5dd2f6047ca ("block: loop:
> improve performance via blk-mq") When add MQ support to loop device, it be
> removed because the member of '->lo_thread' be removed. And then upstream
> add '->worker_task', I think they forget add it to here.
>
> When I install SLES-12 product is base on 4.4 kernel, I found installer will
> hang +60 second at scan disks. and I found LVM tools would take this action.
> finally I found this problem is more obvious on AMD platform. This problem
> will impact all scenarios that scan loop devcies.
>
> When the loop device didn't configure backing file or Request Queue, we
> shouldn't to cost a lot of time to flush it.
>
> Testing steps are following:
> modprobe loop max_loop=64
> dd if=/dev/zero of=disk bs=512 count=200K
> for((i=0;i<4;i++))do losetup -f disk; done
> mkfs.ext4 -F /dev/loop0
> for((i=0;i<4;i++))do mkdir t$i; mount /dev/loop$i t$i;done
> for f in `ls /dev/loop[0-9]*|sort`; do \
> echo $f; dd if=$f of=/dev/null bs=512 count=1; \
> done
>
> Testing data is following:
> /dev/loop0 <rpm-4.4.68-2> <+patched>
> 8.1217e-05 8.3842e-05
> /dev/loop1
> 6.1114e-05 0.000147979
> /dev/loop10
> 0.414701 0.000116564
> /dev/loop11
> 0.7474 6.7942e-05
> /dev/loop12
> 0.747986 8.9082e-05
> /dev/loop13
> 0.746532 7.4799e-05
> /dev/loop14
> 0.480041 9.3926e-05
> /dev/loop15
> 1.26453 7.2522e-05
>
> From /dev/loop10 start, loop isn't mounted. but it take more time than
> mounted devices. And The data differ by several orders of magnitude.
>
> Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <h...@suse.com>
>
> Signed-off-by: James Wang <jnw...@suse.com>
> ---
> drivers/block/loop.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/block/loop.c b/drivers/block/loop.c
> index 48f6fa6f810e..c1807e91db08 100644
> --- a/drivers/block/loop.c
> +++ b/drivers/block/loop.c
> @@ -625,6 +625,9 @@ static int loop_switch(struct loop_device *lo, struct
> file *file)
> */
> static int loop_flush(struct loop_device *lo)
> {
> + /* loop not yet configured, no running thread, nothing to flush */
> + if (!lo->worker_task)
> + return 0;
> return loop_switch(lo, NULL);
> }
Good catch!
But looks better to add check like the following
if (lo->lo_state != Lo_bound)
return 0;
because we don't clear lo->worker_task in loop_unprepare_queue()
and it is more readable to check on lo->lo_state.
why not?
thanks,
Ming
