On Tue 09-05-17 11:49:16, Jeff Layton wrote:
> An errseq_t is a way of recording errors in one place, and allowing any
> number of "subscribers" to tell whether an error has been set again
> since a previous time.
>
> It's implemented as an unsigned 32-bit value that is managed with atomic
> operations. The low order bits are designated to hold an error code
> (max size of MAX_ERRNO). The upper bits are used as a counter.
>
> The API works with consumers sampling an errseq_t value at a particular
> point in time. Later, that value can be used to tell whether new errors
> have been set since that time.
>
> Note that there is a 1 in 512k risk of collisions here if new errors
> are being recorded frequently, since we have so few bits to use as a
> counter. To mitigate this, one bit is used as a flag to tell whether the
> value has been sampled since a new value was recorded. That allows
> us to avoid bumping the counter if no one has sampled it since it
> was last bumped.
>
> Later patches will build on this infrastructure to change how writeback
> errors are tracked in the kernel.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlay...@redhat.com>
The patch looks good to me. Feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <j...@suse.cz>
Just two nits below:
...
> +int errseq_check_and_advance(errseq_t *eseq, errseq_t *since)
> +{
> + int err = 0;
> + errseq_t old, new;
> +
> + /*
> + * Most callers will want to use the inline wrapper to check this,
> + * so that the common case of no error is handled without needing
> + * to lock.
> + */
I'm not sure which locking you are speaking about here. Is the comment
stale?
> + old = READ_ONCE(*eseq);
> + if (old != *since) {
> + /*
> + * Set the flag and try to swap it into place if it has
> + * changed.
> + *
> + * We don't care about the outcome of the swap here. If the
> + * swap doesn't occur, then it has either been updated by a
> + * writer who is bumping the seq count anyway, or another
"bumping the seq count anyway" part is not quite true. Writer may see
ERRSEQ_SEEN not set and so just update the error code and leave seq count
as is. But since you compare full errseq_t for equality, this works out as
designed...
> + * reader who is just setting the "seen" flag. Either outcome
> + * is OK, and we can advance "since" and return an error based
> + * on what we have.
> + */
> + new = old | ERRSEQ_SEEN;
> + if (new != old)
> + cmpxchg(eseq, old, new);
> + *since = new;
> + err = -(new & MAX_ERRNO);
> + }
> + return err;
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(errseq_check_and_advance);
Honza
--
Jan Kara <j...@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
