On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 12:41:09PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2003 10:46 +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 04:15:36PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > What we did was set up a "kmap reservation", which used an atomic_dec()
> > > + wait_event() to reschedule the task until it could get enough kmaps
> > > to satisfy the request without deadlocking (i.e. exceeding the kmap cap
> > > which we conservitavely set at 3/4 of all kmap space).
> >
> > Your approch was fragile (every arch is free to give you just 1 kmap in
> > the pool and you still must not deadlock) and it's not capable of using
> > the whole kmap pool at the same time. the only robust and efficient way
> > to fix it is the kmap_nonblock IMHO
>
> So (says the person who only ever uses i386 and ia64), does an arch exist
> which needs highmem/kmap, but only ever gives 1 kmap in the pool?
>
> > > This works for us because we are the only consumer of huge amounts of kmaps
> > > on our systems, but it would be nice to have a generic interface to do that
> > > so that multiple apps don't deadlock against each other (e.g. NFS + Lustre).
> >
> > This isn't the problem, if NFS wouldn't be broken it couldn't deadlock
> > against Lustre even with your design (assuming you don't fall in the two
> > problems mentioned above). But still your design is more fragile and
> > less scalable, especially for a generic implementation where you don't
> > know how many pages you'll reserve in mean, and you don't know how many
> > kmaps entries the architecture can provide to you. But of course with
> > kmap_nonblock you'll have to fallback submitting single pages if it
> > fails, it's a bit more difficult but it's more robust and optimized IMHO.
>
> In our case, Lustre (well Portals really, the underlying network protocol)
> always knows in advance the number of pages that it will need to kmap
> because the client needs to tell the server in advance how much bulk data
> is going to send. This is required for being able to do RDMA. It might
> be possible to have the server do the transfer in multiple parts if
> kmap_nonblock() failed, but that is not how things are currently set up,
> which is why we block in advance until we know we can get enough pages.
>
> This is very similar to ext3 journaling, which requests in advance the
> maximum number of journal blocks it might need, and blocks until it can
> get them all.
>
> The only problem happens when other parts of the kernel start acquiring
> multiple kmaps without using the same reservation/accounting system as us.
> Each works fine in isolation, but in combination it fails.
no, if the other places are not buggy, it won't fail, regardless if they
use your mechanism or the kmap_nonblock. you don't have to use your
mechanism everywhere to make your mechanism work. For istance you will
be fine with the kmap_nonblock fix in combination with your current
code. Not sure why you think otherwise.
I understand it may be simpler to do the full reservation, in ext3 you
don't even risk anything because you know how large the pool is, but I
think for these cases the kmap_nonblock is superior because you have
obvious depdency on the architecture and you're not able to use at best
all the kmap pool (and here there's not a transaction that has to be
committed all at once so it's doable). still in practice it will work
fine in combination of the other safe usages (like kmap_nonblock) if you
reserve few enough pages at time.
Andrea
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 23 2003 - 22:00:34 EST