Hi Dan,
Honestly I tried to fix this quickly using the approach similar to proposed
by you, with one addition though (in fact, deletion of BUG_ON(chan ==
tx->chan) in async_tx_run_dependencies()). And this led to "Kernel stack
overflow". This happened because of the recurseve calling async_tx_submit()
from async_trigger_callback() and vice verse.
So, then I made the interrupt scheduling in async_tx_submit() only for the
cases when it is really needed: i.e. when dependent operations are to be run
on different channels.
The resulted kernel locked-up during processing of the mkfs command on the
top of the RAID-array. The place where it is spinning is the dma_sync_wait()
function.
This is happened because of the specific implementation of
dma_wait_for_async_tx().
The "iter", we finally waiting for there, corresponds to the last allocated
but not-yet-submitted descriptor. But if the "iter" we are waiting for is
dependent from another descriptor which has cookie > 0, but is not yet
submitted to the h/w channel because of the fact that threshold is not
achieved to this moment, then we may wait in dma_wait_for_async_tx()
infinitely. I think that it makes more sense to get the first descriptor
which was submitted to the channel but probably is not put into the h/w
chain, i.e. with cookie > 0 and do dma_sync_wait() of this descriptor.
When I modified the dma_wait_for_async_tx() in such way, then the kernel
locking had disappeared. But nevertheless the mkfs processes hangs-up after
some time. So, it looks like something is still missing in support of the
chaining dependencies feature...
Below is the final patch I used during my tests:
diff --git a/crypto/async_tx/async_tx.c b/crypto/async_tx/async_tx.c
index bc18cbb..b7d3b2b 100644
--- a/crypto/async_tx/async_tx.c
+++ b/crypto/async_tx/async_tx.c
@@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ dma_wait_for_async_tx(struct dma_async_tx_descriptor *tx)
/* find the root of the unsubmitted dependency chain */
while (iter->cookie == -EBUSY) {
parent = iter->parent;
- if (parent && parent->cookie == -EBUSY)
+ if (parent)
iter = iter->parent;
else
break;
@@ -120,11 +120,12 @@ async_tx_run_dependencies(struct dma_async_tx_descriptor
*tx)
depend_node) {
chan = dep_tx->chan;
dev = chan->device;
- /* we can't depend on ourselves */
- BUG_ON(chan == tx->chan);
list_del(&dep_tx->depend_node);
tx->tx_submit(dep_tx);
+ /* we no longer have a parent */
+ tx->parent = NULL;
+
/* we need to poke the engine as client code does not
* know about dependency submission events
*/
@@ -409,8 +410,9 @@ async_tx_submit(struct dma_chan *chan, struct
dma_async_tx_descriptor *tx,
/* set this new tx to run after depend_tx if:
* 1/ a dependency exists (depend_tx is !NULL)
* 2/ the tx can not be submitted to the current channel
+ * 3/ the depend_tx has a parent
*/
- if (depend_tx && depend_tx->chan != chan) {
+ if (depend_tx && (depend_tx->chan != chan || depend_tx->parent)) {
/* if ack is already set then we cannot be sure
* we are referring to the correct operation
*/
@@ -427,7 +429,8 @@ async_tx_submit(struct dma_chan *chan, struct
dma_async_tx_descriptor *tx,
spin_unlock_bh(&depend_tx->lock);
/* schedule an interrupt to trigger the channel switch */
- async_trigger_callback(ASYNC_TX_ACK, depend_tx, NULL, NULL);
+ if (depend_tx->chan != chan)
+ async_trigger_callback(ASYNC_TX_ACK, depend_tx, NULL,
NULL);
} else {
tx->parent = NULL;
tx->tx_submit(tx);
Regards, Yuri
On Thursday 01 November 2007 06:01, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 09:21 -0700, Yuri Tikhonov wrote:
> >
> > Hello Dan,
> >
> > I've run into a problem with the h/w accelerated RAID-5 driver (on the
> > ppc440spe-based board). After some investigations I've come to conclusion
> > that the issue is with the async_tx_submit() implementation in ASYNC_TX.
> >
> Unfortunately this is correct, async_tx_submit() will let the third
> operation pass the second in the scenario you describe. I propose the
> fix (untested) below. I'll test this out tomorrow when I am back in the
> office.
>
> ---
> async_tx: fix successive dependent operation submission
>
> From: Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> async_tx_submit() tried to use the hardware descriptor chain to maintain
> transaction ordering. However before falling back to hardware-channel
> dependency ordering async_tx_submit() must first check if the entire chain
> is waiting on another channel.
>
> OP1 (DMA0) <--- OP2 (DMA1) <--- OP3 (DMA1)
>
> OP3 must be submitted as an OP2 dependency if it is submitted before OP1
> completes. Otherwise if OP1 is complete, OP3 can use the natural sequence
> of DMA1's hardware chain to satisfy that it runs after OP2.
>
> The fix is to check if the ->parent field of the dependency is non-NULL.
> This also requires that the parent field be cleared at dependency
> submission time.
>
> Found-by: Yuri Tikhonov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> ---
>
> crypto/async_tx/async_tx.c | 6 +++++-
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/crypto/async_tx/async_tx.c b/crypto/async_tx/async_tx.c
> index bc18cbb..eb1afb9 100644
> --- a/crypto/async_tx/async_tx.c
> +++ b/crypto/async_tx/async_tx.c
> @@ -125,6 +125,9 @@ async_tx_run_dependencies(struct dma_async_tx_descriptor
> *tx)
> list_del(&dep_tx->depend_node);
> tx->tx_submit(dep_tx);
>
> + /* we no longer have a parent */
> + tx->parent = NULL;
> +
> /* we need to poke the engine as client code does not
> * know about dependency submission events
> */
> @@ -409,8 +412,9 @@ async_tx_submit(struct dma_chan *chan, struct
> dma_async_tx_descriptor *tx,
> /* set this new tx to run after depend_tx if:
> * 1/ a dependency exists (depend_tx is !NULL)
> * 2/ the tx can not be submitted to the current channel
> + * 3/ the depend_tx has a parent
> */
> - if (depend_tx && depend_tx->chan != chan) {
> + if (depend_tx && (depend_tx->chan != chan || depend_tx->parent)) {
> /* if ack is already set then we cannot be sure
> * we are referring to the correct operation
> */
>
>
--
Yuri Tikhonov, Senior Software Engineer
Emcraft Systems, www.emcraft.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
