change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore
We can remove everything from struct sb_writers except frozen and add the array of percpu_rw_semaphore's instead. This patch doesn't remove sb_writers->wait_unfrozen yet, we keep it for get_super_thawed(). We will probably remove it later. This change tries to address the following problems: - Firstly, __sb_start_write() looks simply buggy. It does __sb_end_write() if it sees ->frozen, but if it migrates to another CPU before percpu_counter_dec(), sb_wait_write() can wrongly succeed if there is another task which holds the same "semaphore": sb_wait_write() can miss the result of the previous percpu_counter_inc() but see the result of this percpu_counter_dec(). - As Dave Hansen reports, it is suboptimal. The trivial microbenchmark that writes to a tmpfs file in a loop runs 12% faster if we change this code to rely on RCU and kill the memory barriers. - This code doesn't look simple. It would be better to rely on the generic locking code. According to Dave, this change adds the same performance improvement. Note: with this change both freeze_super() and thaw_super() will do synchronize_sched_expedited() 3 times. This is just ugly. But: - This will be "fixed" by the rcu_sync changes we are going to merge. After that freeze_super()->percpu_down_write() will use synchronize_sched(), and thaw_super() won't use synchronize() at all. This doesn't need any changes in fs/super.c. - Once we merge rcu_sync changes, we can also change super.c so that all wb_write->rw_sem's will share the single ->rss in struct sb_writes, then freeze_super() will need only one synchronize_sched(). Signed-off-by: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment