Skip to content

cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel

openanolis / cloud-kernel
1 年多 前同步成功

通知 160
Star 36
Fork 7
cloud-kernel
cloud-kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 12 10月, 2011 5 次提交
    • C
      xfs: move more delwri setup into xfs_buf_delwri_queue · 5a8ee6ba
      由 Christoph Hellwig 提交于 
      Do not transfer a reference held by the caller to the buffer on the list,
or decrement it in xfs_buf_delwri_queue, but instead grab a new reference
if needed, and let the caller drop its own reference.  Also move setting
of the XBF_DELWRI and XBF_ASYNC flags into xfs_buf_delwri_queue, and
only do it if needed.  Note that for now xfs_buf_unlock already has
XBF_DELWRI, but that will change in the following patches.
Signed-off-by: NChristoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Reviewed-by: NDave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NAlex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
      5a8ee6ba
    • C
      xfs: remove the unlock argument to xfs_buf_delwri_queue · 527cfdf1
      由 Christoph Hellwig 提交于 
      We can just unlock the buffer in the caller, and the decrement of b_hold
would also be needed in the !unlock, we just never hit that case currently
given that the caller handles that case.
Signed-off-by: NChristoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Reviewed-by: NDave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NAlex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
      527cfdf1
    • C
      xfs: remove delwri buffer handling from xfs_buf_iorequest · 375ec69d
      由 Christoph Hellwig 提交于 
      We cannot ever reach xfs_buf_iorequest for a buffer with XBF_DELWRI set,
given that all write handlers make sure that the buffer is remove from
the delwri queue before, and we never do reads with the XBF_DELWRI flag
set (which the code would not handle correctly anyway).
Signed-off-by: NChristoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Reviewed-by: NDave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NAlex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
      375ec69d
    • D
      xfs: don't serialise adjacent concurrent direct IO appending writes · 7271d243
      由 Dave Chinner 提交于 
      For append write workloads, extending the file requires a certain
amount of exclusive locking to be done up front to ensure sanity in
things like ensuring that we've zeroed any allocated regions
between the old EOF and the start of the new IO.

For single threads, this typically isn't a problem, and for large
IOs we don't serialise enough for it to be a problem for two
threads on really fast block devices. However for smaller IO and
larger thread counts we have a problem.

Take 4 concurrent sequential, single block sized and aligned IOs.
After the first IO is submitted but before it completes, we end up
with this state:

        IO 1    IO 2    IO 3    IO 4
      +-------+-------+-------+-------+
      ^       ^
      |       |
      |       |
      |       |
      |       \- ip->i_new_size
      \- ip->i_size

And the IO is done without exclusive locking because offset <=
ip->i_size. When we submit IO 2, we see offset > ip->i_size, and
grab the IO lock exclusive, because there is a chance we need to do
EOF zeroing. However, there is already an IO in progress that avoids
the need for IO zeroing because offset <= ip->i_new_size. hence we
could avoid holding the IO lock exlcusive for this. Hence after
submission of the second IO, we'd end up this state:

        IO 1    IO 2    IO 3    IO 4
      +-------+-------+-------+-------+
      ^               ^
      |               |
      |               |
      |               |
      |               \- ip->i_new_size
      \- ip->i_size

There is no need to grab the i_mutex of the IO lock in exclusive
mode if we don't need to invalidate the page cache. Taking these
locks on every direct IO effective serialises them as taking the IO
lock in exclusive mode has to wait for all shared holders to drop
the lock. That only happens when IO is complete, so effective it
prevents dispatch of concurrent direct IO writes to the same inode.

And so you can see that for the third concurrent IO, we'd avoid
exclusive locking for the same reason we avoided the exclusive lock
for the second IO.

Fixing this is a bit more complex than that, because we need to hold
a write-submission local value of ip->i_new_size to that clearing
the value is only done if no other thread has updated it before our
IO completes.....
Signed-off-by: NDave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NAlex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
      7271d243
    • D
      xfs: don't serialise direct IO reads on page cache checks · 0c38a251
      由 Dave Chinner 提交于 
      There is no need to grab the i_mutex of the IO lock in exclusive
mode if we don't need to invalidate the page cache. Taking these
locks on every direct IO effective serialises them as taking the IO
lock in exclusive mode has to wait for all shared holders to drop
the lock. That only happens when IO is complete, so effective it
prevents dispatch of concurrent direct IO reads to the same inode.

Fix this by taking the IO lock shared to check the page cache state,
and only then drop it and take the IO lock exclusively if there is
work to be done. Hence for the normal direct IO case, no exclusive
locking will occur.
Signed-off-by: NDave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Tested-by: NJoern Engel <joern@logfs.org>
Reviewed-by: NChristoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: NAlex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
      0c38a251
  3. 05 10月, 2011 12 次提交
  5. 04 10月, 2011 17 次提交
  7. 03 10月, 2011 5 次提交
  9. 02 10月, 2011 1 次提交