On 26.05.2011 12:47, Miao Xie wrote:
> On thu, 26 May 2011 12:14:21 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 02:59:06PM +0200, Arne Jansen wrote:
>>> +static struct reada_zone *reada_find_zone(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>>> + struct btrfs_device *dev, u64 logical,
>>> + struct btrfs_multi_bio *multi)
>>> +{
>>> + int ret;
>>> + int looped = 0;
>>> + struct reada_zone *zone;
>>> + struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache = NULL;
>>> + u64 start;
>>> + u64 end;
>>> + int i;
>>> +
>>> +again:
>>> + zone = NULL;
>>> + spin_lock(&fs_info->reada_lock);
>>> + ret = radix_tree_gang_lookup(&dev->reada_zones, (void **)&zone,
>>> + logical >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT, 1);
>>> + if (ret == 1)
>>> + kref_get(&zone->refcnt);
>>> + spin_unlock(&fs_info->reada_lock);
>>> +
>>> + if (ret == 1) {
>>> + if (logical >= zone->start && logical < zone->end)
>>> + return zone;
>>> + spin_lock(&fs_info->reada_lock);
>>> + reada_zone_put(zone);
>>> + spin_unlock(&fs_info->reada_lock);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (looped)
>>> + return NULL;
>>> +
>>> + cache = btrfs_lookup_block_group(fs_info, logical);
>>> + if (!cache)
>>> + return NULL;
>>> +
>>> + start = cache->key.objectid;
>>> + end = start + cache->key.offset - 1;
>>> + btrfs_put_block_group(cache);
>>> +
>>> + zone = kzalloc(sizeof(*zone), GFP_NOFS);
>>> + if (!zone)
>>> + return NULL;
>>> +
>>> + zone->start = start;
>>> + zone->end = end;
>>> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&zone->list);
>>> + spin_lock_init(&zone->lock);
>>> + zone->locked = 0;
>>> + kref_init(&zone->refcnt);
>>> + zone->elems = 0;
>>> + zone->device = dev; /* our device always sits at index 0 */
>>> + for (i = 0; i < multi->num_stripes; ++i) {
>>> + /* bounds have already been checked */
>>> + zone->devs[i] = multi->stripes[i].dev;
>>> + }
>>> + zone->ndevs = multi->num_stripes;
>>> +
>>> + spin_lock(&fs_info->reada_lock);
>>> + ret = radix_tree_insert(&dev->reada_zones,
>>> + (unsigned long)zone->end >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT,
>>> + zone);
>>
>> this can sleep inside a spinlock, you initialize the radix tree with
>> GFP_NOFS, which allows __GFP_WAIT.
>>
>> Options:
>> 1) use GFP_ATOMIC in radix tree init flags
>> 2) do the radix_tree_preload/radix_tree_preload_end, GFP_NOFS outside of the
>> locked section is ok but __GFP_WAIT has to be masked out (else radix
>> tree insert will not use the preloaded node)
>> 3) unmask __GFP_WAIT from radix tree init flags
>>
>> I'd go for 3, as the atomic context is not required, and is easier
>> than 2 to implement.
>
> I like the second one, because it is the general way to fix this problem.
I can't use the second one, as I have code to insert into 3 trees inside
one spin_lock, and preload can preload one for one insertion. My
intention was to use GFP_ATOMIC, don't know how I ended up NOFS
instead. If unmasking GFP_WAIT instead is sufficient, I'd prefer that
solution, too.
>
> BTW: I think we can use RCU to protect the radix tree on the read side.
> Arne, how do you think about?
I decided against RCU, because inside the same lock I also take a ref on
the structure.
The data structures and locking are already quite complex, so I tried to
keep it as simple as possible until profiling shows that this is a
problem.
Mainly it works with a single global (well, per btrfs) lock, but
splitting it is hard and will normally lead to needing more
lock/unlocks, so I'd prefer to only do it if it doesn't scale.
Thanks,
Arne
>
> Thanks
> Miao
>
>>
>>> + spin_unlock(&fs_info->reada_lock);
>>> +
>>> + if (ret) {
>>> + kfree(zone);
>>> + looped = 1;
>>> + goto again;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + return zone;
>>> +}
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
