Skip to content

L
linux
Switch branch/tag
  1. 01 Dec, 2010 2 commits
    • Vivek Goyal's avatar
      blk-throttle: Correct the placement of smp_rmb() · 04a6b516
      Vivek Goyal authored 
      o I was discussing what are the variable being updated without spin lock and
  why do we need barriers and Oleg pointed out that location of smp_rmb()
  should be between read of td->limits_changed and tg->limits_changed. This
  patch fixes it.

o Following is one possible sequence of events. Say cpu0 is executing
  throtl_update_blkio_group_read_bps() and cpu1 is executing
  throtl_process_limit_change().

 cpu0                                                cpu1

 tg->limits_changed = true;
 smp_mb__before_atomic_inc();
 atomic_inc(&td->limits_changed);

                                     if (!atomic_read(&td->limits_changed))
                                             return;

                                     if (tg->limits_changed)
                                             do_something;

 If cpu0 has updated tg->limits_changed and td->limits_changed, we want to
 make sure that if update to td->limits_changed is visible on cpu1, then
 update to tg->limits_changed should also be visible.

 Oleg pointed out to ensure that we need to insert an smp_rmb() between
 td->limits_changed read and tg->limits_changed read.

o I had erroneously put smp_rmb() before atomic_read(&td->limits_changed).
  This patch fixes it.
Reported-by: default avatarOleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarVivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarJens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>
      04a6b516
    • Vivek Goyal's avatar
      blk-throttle: Trim/adjust slice_end once a bio has been dispatched · d1ae8ffd
      Vivek Goyal authored 
      o During some testing I did following and noticed throttling stops working.

        - Put a very low limit on a cgroup, say 1 byte per second.
        - Start some reads, this will set slice_end to a very high value.
        - Change the limit to higher value say 1MB/s
        - Now IO unthrottles and finishes as expected.
        - Try to do the read again but IO is not limited to 1MB/s as expected.

o What is happening.
        - Initially low value of limit sets slice_end to a very high value.
        - During updation of limit, slice_end is not being truncated.
        - Very high value of slice_end leads to keeping the existing slice
          valid for a very long time and new slice does not start.
        - tg_may_dispatch() is called in blk_throtle_bio(), and trim_slice()
          is not called in this path. So slice_start is some old value and
          practically we are able to do huge amount of IO.

o There are many ways it can be fixed. I have fixed it by trying to
  adjust/cleanup slice_end in trim_slice(). Generally we extend slices if bio
  is big and can't be dispatched in one slice. After dispatch of bio, readjust
  the slice_end to make sure we don't end up with huge values.
Signed-off-by: default avatarVivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarJens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com>
      d1ae8ffd
  3. 29 Nov, 2010 1 commit
  5. 27 Nov, 2010 2 commits
  7. 26 Nov, 2010 13 commits
  9. 25 Nov, 2010 8 commits
  11. 24 Nov, 2010 14 commits
GitLab Nexedi Edition | About GitLab | About Nexedi | 沪ICP备2021021310号-2 | 沪ICP备2021021310号-7