> On Apr 30, 2018, at 21:52, NeilBrown <ne...@suse.com> wrote:
> >
> > The current retry logic, to wait when a 'dying' object is found,
> > spans multiple functions. The process is attached to a waitqueue
> > and set TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE in htable_lookup, and this status
> > is passed back through lu_object_find_try() to lu_object_find_at()
> > where schedule() is called and the process is removed from the queue.
> >
> > This can be simplified by moving all the logic (including
> > hashtable locking) inside htable_lookup(), which now never returns
> > EAGAIN.
> >
> > Note that htable_lookup() is called with the hash bucket lock
> > held, and will drop and retake it if it needs to schedule.
> >
> > I made this a 'goto' loop rather than a 'while(1)' loop as the
> > diff is easier to read.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <ne...@suse.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lu_object.c | 73
> > +++++++-------------
> > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lu_object.c
> > b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lu_object.c
> > index 2bf089817157..93daa52e2535 100644
> > --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lu_object.c
> > +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lu_object.c
> > @@ -586,16 +586,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(lu_object_print);
> > static struct lu_object *htable_lookup(struct lu_site *s,
>
> It's probably a good idea to add a comment for this function that it may
> drop and re-acquire the hash bucket lock internally.
>
> > struct cfs_hash_bd *bd,
> > const struct lu_fid *f,
> > - wait_queue_entry_t *waiter,
> > __u64 *version)
> > {
> > + struct cfs_hash *hs = s->ls_obj_hash;
> > struct lu_site_bkt_data *bkt;
> > struct lu_object_header *h;
> > struct hlist_node *hnode;
> > - __u64 ver = cfs_hash_bd_version_get(bd);
> > + __u64 ver;
> > + wait_queue_entry_t waiter;
> >
> > - if (*version == ver)
> > +retry:
> > + ver = cfs_hash_bd_version_get(bd);
> > +
> > + if (*version == ver) {
> > return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> > + }
>
> (style) we don't need the {} around a single-line if statement
I hate to be that guy but could you run checkpatch on your patches.
> > *version = ver;
> > bkt = cfs_hash_bd_extra_get(s->ls_obj_hash, bd);
> > @@ -625,11 +630,15 @@ static struct lu_object *htable_lookup(struct lu_site
> > *s,
> > * drained), and moreover, lookup has to wait until object is freed.
> > */
> >
> > - init_waitqueue_entry(waiter, current);
> > - add_wait_queue(&bkt->lsb_marche_funebre, waiter);
> > + init_waitqueue_entry(&waiter, current);
> > + add_wait_queue(&bkt->lsb_marche_funebre, &waiter);
> > set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > lprocfs_counter_incr(s->ls_stats, LU_SS_CACHE_DEATH_RACE);
> > - return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN);
> > + cfs_hash_bd_unlock(hs, bd, 1);
>
> This looks like it isn't unlocking and locking the hash bucket in the same
> manner that it was done in the caller. Here excl = 1, but in the caller
> you changed it to excl = 0?
This is very much like the work done by Lai. The difference is Lai remove
the work queue handling complete in htable_lookup(). You can see the
details at https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-9049. I will push the
missing lu_object fixes including LU-9049 on top of your patch set so you
can see the approach Lai did. Form their we can figure out merge the
lu_object work and fixing the issues Andreas and I pointed out.
> > + schedule();
> > + remove_wait_queue(&bkt->lsb_marche_funebre, &waiter);
>
> Is it worthwhile to use your new helper function here to get the wq from "s"?
>
> > + cfs_hash_bd_lock(hs, bd, 1);
> > + goto retry;
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > @@ -693,13 +702,14 @@ static struct lu_object *lu_object_new(const struct
> > lu_env *env,
> > }
> >
> > /**
> > - * Core logic of lu_object_find*() functions.
> > + * Much like lu_object_find(), but top level device of object is
> > specifically
> > + * \a dev rather than top level device of the site. This interface allows
> > + * objects of different "stacking" to be created within the same site.
> > */
> > -static struct lu_object *lu_object_find_try(const struct lu_env *env,
> > - struct lu_device *dev,
> > - const struct lu_fid *f,
> > - const struct lu_object_conf *conf,
> > - wait_queue_entry_t *waiter)
> > +struct lu_object *lu_object_find_at(const struct lu_env *env,
> > + struct lu_device *dev,
> > + const struct lu_fid *f,
> > + const struct lu_object_conf *conf)
> > {
> > struct lu_object *o;
> > struct lu_object *shadow;
> > @@ -725,17 +735,16 @@ static struct lu_object *lu_object_find_try(const
> > struct lu_env *env,
> > * It is unnecessary to perform lookup-alloc-lookup-insert, instead,
> > * just alloc and insert directly.
> > *
> > - * If dying object is found during index search, add @waiter to the
> > - * site wait-queue and return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN).
> > */
> > if (conf && conf->loc_flags & LOC_F_NEW)
> > return lu_object_new(env, dev, f, conf);
> >
> > s = dev->ld_site;
> > hs = s->ls_obj_hash;
> > - cfs_hash_bd_get_and_lock(hs, (void *)f, &bd, 1);
> > - o = htable_lookup(s, &bd, f, waiter, &version);
> > - cfs_hash_bd_unlock(hs, &bd, 1);
> > + cfs_hash_bd_get_and_lock(hs, (void *)f, &bd, 0);
> > + o = htable_lookup(s, &bd, f, &version);
> > + cfs_hash_bd_unlock(hs, &bd, 0);
>
> Here you changed the locking to a non-exclusive (read) lock instead of an
> exclusive (write) lock? Why.
I have the same question.
>
> > +
> > if (!IS_ERR(o) || PTR_ERR(o) != -ENOENT)
> > return o;
> >
> > @@ -751,7 +760,7 @@ static struct lu_object *lu_object_find_try(const
> > struct lu_env *env,
> >
> > cfs_hash_bd_lock(hs, &bd, 1);
> >
> > - shadow = htable_lookup(s, &bd, f, waiter, &version);
> > + shadow = htable_lookup(s, &bd, f, &version);
> > if (likely(PTR_ERR(shadow) == -ENOENT)) {
> > cfs_hash_bd_add_locked(hs, &bd, &o->lo_header->loh_hash);
> > cfs_hash_bd_unlock(hs, &bd, 1);
> > @@ -766,34 +775,6 @@ static struct lu_object *lu_object_find_try(const
> > struct lu_env *env,
> > lu_object_free(env, o);
> > return shadow;
> > }
> > -
> > -/**
> > - * Much like lu_object_find(), but top level device of object is
> > specifically
> > - * \a dev rather than top level device of the site. This interface allows
> > - * objects of different "stacking" to be created within the same site.
> > - */
> > -struct lu_object *lu_object_find_at(const struct lu_env *env,
> > - struct lu_device *dev,
> > - const struct lu_fid *f,
> > - const struct lu_object_conf *conf)
> > -{
> > - wait_queue_head_t *wq;
> > - struct lu_object *obj;
> > - wait_queue_entry_t wait;
> > -
> > - while (1) {
> > - obj = lu_object_find_try(env, dev, f, conf, &wait);
> > - if (obj != ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN))
> > - return obj;
> > - /*
> > - * lu_object_find_try() already added waiter into the
> > - * wait queue.
> > - */
> > - schedule();
> > - wq = lu_site_wq_from_fid(dev->ld_site, (void *)f);
> > - remove_wait_queue(wq, &wait);
> > - }
> > -}
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(lu_object_find_at);
> >
> > /**
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > lustre-devel mailing list
> > lustre-de...@lists.lustre.org
> > http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org
>
> Cheers, Andreas
> --
> Andreas Dilger
> Lustre Principal Architect
> Intel Corporation
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
