From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Keith Busch <kbusch@kernel.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>,
axboe@kernel.dk, osandov@fb.com, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yukuai3@huawei.com,
yi.zhang@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] sbitmap: fix possible io hung due to lost wakeup
Date: Wed, 7 Sep 2022 18:41:50 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220907164150.tykjl3jsctjddcnq@quack3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YxinFEYRCU/QuQ5w@kbusch-mbp.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
On Wed 07-09-22 08:13:40, Keith Busch wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 12:23:18PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 06-09-22 15:27:51, Keith Busch wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2022 at 08:15:04PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> > > > wait_cnt = atomic_dec_return(&ws->wait_cnt);
> > > > - if (wait_cnt <= 0) {
> > > > - int ret;
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * For concurrent callers of this, callers should call this function
> > > > + * again to wakeup a new batch on a different 'ws'.
> > > > + */
> > > > + if (wait_cnt < 0 || !waitqueue_active(&ws->wait))
> > > > + return true;
> > >
> > > If wait_cnt is '0', but the waitqueue_active happens to be false due to racing
> > > with add_wait_queue(), this returns true so the caller will retry.
> >
> > Well, note that sbq_wake_ptr() called to obtain 'ws' did waitqueue_active()
> > check. So !waitqueue_active() should really happen only if waiter was woken
> > up by someone else or so. Not that it would matter much but I wanted to
> > point it out.
> >
> > > The next atomic_dec will set the current waitstate wait_cnt < 0, which
> > > also forces an early return true. When does the wake up happen, or
> > > wait_cnt and wait_index get updated in that case?
> >
> > I guess your concern could be rephrased as: Who's going to ever set
> > ws->wait_cnt to value > 0 if we ever exit with wait_cnt == 0 due to
> > !waitqueue_active() condition?
> >
> > And that is a good question and I think that's a bug in this patch. I think
> > we need something like:
> >
> > ...
> > /*
> > * For concurrent callers of this, callers should call this function
> > * again to wakeup a new batch on a different 'ws'.
> > */
> > if (wait_cnt < 0)
> > return true;
> > /*
> > * If we decremented queue without waiters, retry to avoid lost
> > * wakeups.
> > */
> > if (wait_cnt > 0)
> > return !waitqueue_active(&ws->wait);
>
> I'm not sure about this part. We've already decremented, so the freed bit is
> accounted for against the batch. Returning true here may double-count the freed
> bit, right?
Yes, we may wake up waiters unnecessarily frequently. But that's a
performance issue at worst and only if it happens frequently. So I don't
think it matters in practice (famous last words ;).
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-09-07 16:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-03 12:15 [PATCH] sbitmap: fix possible io hung due to lost wakeup Yu Kuai
2022-08-13 5:58 ` Yu Kuai
2022-08-23 13:37 ` Jens Axboe
2022-09-06 21:27 ` Keith Busch
2022-09-07 1:12 ` Yu Kuai
2022-09-07 10:23 ` Jan Kara
2022-09-07 14:13 ` Keith Busch
2022-09-07 16:41 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2022-09-07 18:20 ` Keith Busch
2022-09-08 9:33 ` Jan Kara
2022-09-08 9:45 ` Yu Kuai
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220907164150.tykjl3jsctjddcnq@quack3 \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=kbusch@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=osandov@fb.com \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--cc=yukuai1@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).