Re: [PATCHSET] block, mempool, percpu: implement percpu mempool andfix blkcg percpu alloc deadlock

[Vivek Goyal]

On Wed, Jan 04, 2012 at 05:28:42PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 04:41:02PM -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 09:14:02AM +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > > > This is essentially more specialized form of the mempool approach.  It
> > > > doesn't seem any simpler to me while being less generic.  I don't see
> > > > what the upside would be.
> > > 
> > > Hm, but this never causes -ENOMEM error, at all.
> > 
> > Ooh, I missed the part it falls back to the global counter if percpu
> > counters aren't allocated yet.  Yeah, this is an interesting approach.
> > I'll think more about it.
> 
> I've been staring at the blkcg stats code and commit logs and am
> wondering whether we can just scrap percpu counters there.  It seems
> the reason why it was introduced in the first place is to avoid
> stats->lock, which BTW is extremely heavy handed for gathering stats,
> overhead in fast paths and I think there can be easier ways to avoid
> stats->lock.

Tejun, 

If you get rid of stats->lock, and also don't use per cpu data strucutres
how would we avoid races in case of concurrent update (IO submission?).

Thanks
Vivek
--
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/