[lustre-devel] [PATCH 04/10] staging: lustre: lu_object: move retry logic inside htable_lookup
Dilger, Andreas
andreas.dilger at intel.com
Tue May 1 01:22:50 PDT 2018
On Apr 30, 2018, at 21:52, NeilBrown <neilb at suse.com> wrote:
>
> The current retry logic, to wait when a 'dying' object is found,
> spans multiple functions. The process is attached to a waitqueue
> and set TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE in htable_lookup, and this status
> is passed back through lu_object_find_try() to lu_object_find_at()
> where schedule() is called and the process is removed from the queue.
>
> This can be simplified by moving all the logic (including
> hashtable locking) inside htable_lookup(), which now never returns
> EAGAIN.
>
> Note that htable_lookup() is called with the hash bucket lock
> held, and will drop and retake it if it needs to schedule.
>
> I made this a 'goto' loop rather than a 'while(1)' loop as the
> diff is easier to read.
>
> Signed-off-by: NeilBrown <neilb at suse.com>
> ---
> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lu_object.c | 73 +++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lu_object.c b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lu_object.c
> index 2bf089817157..93daa52e2535 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lu_object.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/lu_object.c
> @@ -586,16 +586,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(lu_object_print);
> static struct lu_object *htable_lookup(struct lu_site *s,
It's probably a good idea to add a comment for this function that it may
drop and re-acquire the hash bucket lock internally.
> struct cfs_hash_bd *bd,
> const struct lu_fid *f,
> - wait_queue_entry_t *waiter,
> __u64 *version)
> {
> + struct cfs_hash *hs = s->ls_obj_hash;
> struct lu_site_bkt_data *bkt;
> struct lu_object_header *h;
> struct hlist_node *hnode;
> - __u64 ver = cfs_hash_bd_version_get(bd);
> + __u64 ver;
> + wait_queue_entry_t waiter;
>
> - if (*version == ver)
> +retry:
> + ver = cfs_hash_bd_version_get(bd);
> +
> + if (*version == ver) {
> return ERR_PTR(-ENOENT);
> + }
(style) we don't need the {} around a single-line if statement
> *version = ver;
> bkt = cfs_hash_bd_extra_get(s->ls_obj_hash, bd);
> @@ -625,11 +630,15 @@ static struct lu_object *htable_lookup(struct lu_site *s,
> * drained), and moreover, lookup has to wait until object is freed.
> */
>
> - init_waitqueue_entry(waiter, current);
> - add_wait_queue(&bkt->lsb_marche_funebre, waiter);
> + init_waitqueue_entry(&waiter, current);
> + add_wait_queue(&bkt->lsb_marche_funebre, &waiter);
> set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> lprocfs_counter_incr(s->ls_stats, LU_SS_CACHE_DEATH_RACE);
> - return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN);
> + cfs_hash_bd_unlock(hs, bd, 1);
This looks like it isn't unlocking and locking the hash bucket in the same
manner that it was done in the caller. Here excl = 1, but in the caller
you changed it to excl = 0?
> + schedule();
> + remove_wait_queue(&bkt->lsb_marche_funebre, &waiter);
Is it worthwhile to use your new helper function here to get the wq from "s"?
> + cfs_hash_bd_lock(hs, bd, 1);
> + goto retry;
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -693,13 +702,14 @@ static struct lu_object *lu_object_new(const struct lu_env *env,
> }
>
> /**
> - * Core logic of lu_object_find*() functions.
> + * Much like lu_object_find(), but top level device of object is specifically
> + * \a dev rather than top level device of the site. This interface allows
> + * objects of different "stacking" to be created within the same site.
> */
> -static struct lu_object *lu_object_find_try(const struct lu_env *env,
> - struct lu_device *dev,
> - const struct lu_fid *f,
> - const struct lu_object_conf *conf,
> - wait_queue_entry_t *waiter)
> +struct lu_object *lu_object_find_at(const struct lu_env *env,
> + struct lu_device *dev,
> + const struct lu_fid *f,
> + const struct lu_object_conf *conf)
> {
> struct lu_object *o;
> struct lu_object *shadow;
> @@ -725,17 +735,16 @@ static struct lu_object *lu_object_find_try(const struct lu_env *env,
> * It is unnecessary to perform lookup-alloc-lookup-insert, instead,
> * just alloc and insert directly.
> *
> - * If dying object is found during index search, add @waiter to the
> - * site wait-queue and return ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN).
> */
> if (conf && conf->loc_flags & LOC_F_NEW)
> return lu_object_new(env, dev, f, conf);
>
> s = dev->ld_site;
> hs = s->ls_obj_hash;
> - cfs_hash_bd_get_and_lock(hs, (void *)f, &bd, 1);
> - o = htable_lookup(s, &bd, f, waiter, &version);
> - cfs_hash_bd_unlock(hs, &bd, 1);
> + cfs_hash_bd_get_and_lock(hs, (void *)f, &bd, 0);
> + o = htable_lookup(s, &bd, f, &version);
> + cfs_hash_bd_unlock(hs, &bd, 0);
Here you changed the locking to a non-exclusive (read) lock instead of an
exclusive (write) lock? Why.
> +
> if (!IS_ERR(o) || PTR_ERR(o) != -ENOENT)
> return o;
>
> @@ -751,7 +760,7 @@ static struct lu_object *lu_object_find_try(const struct lu_env *env,
>
> cfs_hash_bd_lock(hs, &bd, 1);
>
> - shadow = htable_lookup(s, &bd, f, waiter, &version);
> + shadow = htable_lookup(s, &bd, f, &version);
> if (likely(PTR_ERR(shadow) == -ENOENT)) {
> cfs_hash_bd_add_locked(hs, &bd, &o->lo_header->loh_hash);
> cfs_hash_bd_unlock(hs, &bd, 1);
> @@ -766,34 +775,6 @@ static struct lu_object *lu_object_find_try(const struct lu_env *env,
> lu_object_free(env, o);
> return shadow;
> }
> -
> -/**
> - * Much like lu_object_find(), but top level device of object is specifically
> - * \a dev rather than top level device of the site. This interface allows
> - * objects of different "stacking" to be created within the same site.
> - */
> -struct lu_object *lu_object_find_at(const struct lu_env *env,
> - struct lu_device *dev,
> - const struct lu_fid *f,
> - const struct lu_object_conf *conf)
> -{
> - wait_queue_head_t *wq;
> - struct lu_object *obj;
> - wait_queue_entry_t wait;
> -
> - while (1) {
> - obj = lu_object_find_try(env, dev, f, conf, &wait);
> - if (obj != ERR_PTR(-EAGAIN))
> - return obj;
> - /*
> - * lu_object_find_try() already added waiter into the
> - * wait queue.
> - */
> - schedule();
> - wq = lu_site_wq_from_fid(dev->ld_site, (void *)f);
> - remove_wait_queue(wq, &wait);
> - }
> -}
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(lu_object_find_at);
>
> /**
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lustre-devel mailing list
> lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/listinfo.cgi/lustre-devel-lustre.org
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Lustre Principal Architect
Intel Corporation
More information about the lustre-devel
mailing list