Re: [PATCH 2.6.0-test9-mm5] aio-dio-fallback-bio_count-race.patch
From: Suparna Bhattacharya
Date: Tue Dec 02 2003 - 10:22:22 EST
I suspect the degree to which the spin_lock_irq is costlier
than atomic_inc/dec would vary across architectures - cli/sti
is probably more expensive on certain archs than others.
The patch I sent just kept things the way they were in terms of
locking costs, assuming that those choices were thought through
at that time (should check with akpm). Yours changes it by
switching to spin_lock(unlock)_irq instead of atomic_dec in
the normal (common) path for finished_one_bio, for both sync
and async i/o. At the same time, for the sync i/o case, as
you observe it takes away one atomic_dec from dio_bio_end_io.
Since these probably aren't really very hot paths ... possibly
the difference doesn't matter that much. I do agree that your
patch makes the locking easier to follow.
On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 05:35:18PM -0800, Daniel McNeil wrote:
> Sorry I did not respond sooner, I was on vacation.
> Your patch should also fix the problem. I like mine with the
> cleaner locking.
> I am not sure your approach has less overhead. At least
> on x86, cli/sti are fairly inexpensive. The locked xchange or locked
> inc/dec is what is expensive (from what I understand).
> So comparing:
> my patch: Your patch:
> spin_lock() atomic_inc(bio_count);
> bio_count++ atomic_inc(bios_in_flight);
> My guess is that the spin_lock/spin_unlock is faster than 2 atomic_inc's
> since it is only 1 locked operation (spin_lock) verses 2 (atomic_inc's)
> finished_one_bio() (normal case)
> My patch:
> spin_lock() atomic_dec_and_test(bio_count)
> 1 locked instruction each, so very close -- atomic_dec_and_test() does
> not disable interrupts, so it is probabably a little bit faster.
> finished_one-bio (fallback case):
> spin_lock() spin_lock()
> bio_count--; dio->waiter = null
> spin_unlock() spin_unlock()
> Both approaches are the same.
> spin_lock() spin_lock()
> bios_in_flight-- atomic_dec()
> spin_unlock spin_unlock()
> My patch is faster since it removed 1 locked instruction.
> My guess would be that both approaches are close, but my patch
> has less locked instructions but does disable interrupts more.
> My preference is for the cleaner locking approach that is easier
> to understand and modify in the future.
> On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 23:55, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 03:49:31PM -0800, Daniel McNeil wrote:
> > > Suparna,
> > >
> > > Yes your patch did help. I originally had CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB=y which
> > > was helping me see problems because the the freed dio was getting
> > > poisoned. I also tested with CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC=y which is
> > > very good at catching these.
> > Ah I see - perhaps that explains why neither Janet nor I could
> > recreate the problem that you were hitting so easily. So we
> > should probably try running with CONFIG_DEBUG_SLAB and
> > CONFIG_DEBUG_PAGEALLOC as well.
> > >
> > > I updated your AIO fallback patch plus your AIO race plus I fixed
> > > the bio_count decrement fix. This patch has all three fixes and
> > > it is working for me.
> > >
> > > I fixed the bio_count race, by changing bio_list_lock into bio_lock
> > > and using that for all the bio fields. I changed bio_count and
> > > bios_in_flight from atomics into int. They are now proctected by
> > > the bio_lock. I fixed the race, by in finished_one_bio() by
> > > leaving the bio_count at 1 until after the dio_complete()
> > > and then do the bio_count decrement and wakeup holding the bio_lock.
> > >
> > > Take a look, give it a try, and let me know what you think.
> > I had been trying a slightly different kind of fix -- appended is
> > the updated version of the patch I last posted. It uses the bio_list_lock
> > to protect the dio->waiter field, which finished_one_bio sets back
> > to NULL after it has issued the wakeup; and the code that waits for
> > i/o to drain out checks the dio->waiter field instead of bio_count.
> > This might not seem very obvious given the nomenclature of the
> > bio_list_lock, so I was holding back wondering if it could be
> > improved.
> > Your approach looks clearer in that sense -- its pretty unambiguous
> > about what lock protects what fields. The only thing that bothers me (and
> > this is what I was trying to avoid in my patch) is the increased
> > use of spin_lock_irq 's (overhead of turning interrupts off and on)
> > instead of simple atomic inc/dec in most places.
> > Thoughts ?
> > Regards
> > Suparna
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in
> the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux AIO,
> see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@xxxxxxxxx">aart@xxxxxxxxx</a>
Suparna Bhattacharya (suparna@xxxxxxxxxx)
Linux Technology Center
IBM Software Lab, India
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/