|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v1 3/7] xen-blkback: implement LRU mechanism for persistent grants
On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 01:19:38PM +0200, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On 09/04/13 17:42, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 12:10:39PM +0100, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
> >> This mechanism allows blkback to change the number of grants
> >> persistently mapped at run time.
> >>
> >> The algorithm uses a simple LRU mechanism that removes (if needed) the
> >> persistent grants that have not been used since the last LRU run, or
> >> if all grants have been used it removes the first grants in the list
> >> (that are not in use).
> >>
> >> The algorithm allows the user to change the maximum number of
> >> persistent grants, by changing max_persistent_grants in sysfs.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> ---
> >> Changes since RFC:
> >> * Offload part of the purge work to a kworker thread.
> >> * Add documentation about sysfs tunable.
> >> ---
> >> Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-bus-xen-backend | 7 +
> >> drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c | 278
> >> +++++++++++++++++++-----
> >> drivers/block/xen-blkback/common.h | 12 +
> >> drivers/block/xen-blkback/xenbus.c | 2 +
> >> 4 files changed, 240 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-bus-xen-backend
> >> b/Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-bus-xen-backend
> >> index e04afe0..7595b38 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-bus-xen-backend
> >> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/stable/sysfs-bus-xen-backend
> >> @@ -81,3 +81,10 @@ Contact: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Description:
> >> Maximum number of free pages to keep in each block
> >> backend buffer.
> >> +
> >> +What: /sys/module/xen_blkback/parameters/max_persistent_grants
> >> +Date: March 2013
> >> +KernelVersion: 3.10
> >> +Contact: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> +Description:
> >> + Maximum number of grants to map persistently in blkback.
> >
> > You are missing the other 2 paramters.
>
> Since the other two parameters are not "public", in the sense that you
> need to change the source in order to use them, I have not added them to
> the list of parameters.
OK, can we just get rid of them?
>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> >> b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> >> index 8a1892a..fd1dd38 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkback/blkback.c
> >> @@ -78,6 +78,44 @@ module_param_named(max_buffer_pages,
> >> xen_blkif_max_buffer_pages, int, 0644);
> >> MODULE_PARM_DESC(max_buffer_pages,
> >> "Maximum number of free pages to keep in each block backend buffer");
> >>
> >> +/*
> >> + * Maximum number of grants to map persistently in blkback. For maximum
> >> + * performance this should be the total numbers of grants that can be used
> >> + * to fill the ring, but since this might become too high, specially with
> >> + * the use of indirect descriptors, we set it to a value that provides
> >> good
> >> + * performance without using too much memory.
> >> + *
> >> + * When the list of persistent grants is full we clean it using a LRU
> > ^- up
> >
> >> + * algorithm.
> >
> > Sorry for the confusion. Does this mean that the cap is 352? Or that once
> > we hit the cap of 352 then the LRU engine gets kicked in?
>
> This means that we can add up to 352 grants without the LRU kicking in,
> if we try to add 353, then the LRU would kick in.
>
> >
> >> + */
> >> +
> >> +static int xen_blkif_max_pgrants = 352;
> >> +module_param_named(max_persistent_grants, xen_blkif_max_pgrants, int,
> >> 0644);
> >> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(max_persistent_grants,
> >> + "Maximum number of grants to map persistently");
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * The LRU mechanism to clean the lists of persistent grants needs to
> >> + * be executed periodically. The time interval between consecutive
> >> executions
> >> + * of the purge mechanism is set in ms.
> >> + */
> >> +
> >> +static int xen_blkif_lru_interval = 100;
> >> +module_param_named(lru_interval, xen_blkif_lru_interval, int, 0);
> >
> > Is the '0' intentional?
>
> I didn't plan to make them public, because I'm not sure of the benefit
> of exporting those, but they are there so if someone wants to really
> tune this parameters it can be done without much trouble. The same with
> lru_percent_clean. Would you prefer to make those public?
Nope. Rather remove them altogether. Or if you want them to tweak a bit
then use the xen_init_debugfs().. and setup a 'blkback' DebugFS directory
with these.
>
> >
> >> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(lru_interval,
> >> +"Execution interval (in ms) of the LRU mechanism to clean the list of
> >> persistent grants");
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * When the persistent grants list is full we will remove unused grants
> >> + * from the list. The percent number of grants to be removed at each LRU
> >> + * execution.
> >> + */
> >> +
> >> +static int xen_blkif_lru_percent_clean = 5;
> >
> > OK, so by default if the persistent grants are at 352 pages we start
> > trimming
> > 5% of the list every 100ms. Are we trimming the whole list or just down
> > to 352 (so max_persistent_grants?).
>
> In the case that we have here, max_persistent_grants is set to
> RING_SIZE*MAX_SEGMENTS, so the LRU would never kick in. If we set this
> to something lower, then the LRU would kick in and remove 5% of
> max_persistent_grants at each execution.
And then stop. Later on (on the next time it goes in the LRU system) it would
not even bother removing as the count is below max_persistent_grants.
>
> >
> > If the latter do we stop the LRU execution at that point? If so please
> > enumerate that. Oh and do we stop at 352 or do we do the 5% so we end up
> > actually
> > at 334?
> >
> > Would it make sense to cap the engine to stop removing unused grants
> > down to xen_blkif_max_pgrants?
>
> If I got your question right, I think this is already done by the
> current implementation, it will only start removing grants the moment we
> try to use more than max_persistent_grants, but not when using exactly
> max_persistent_grants.
Right. I think it makes sense to enumerate that in the documentation part here.
>
> >
> >> +module_param_named(lru_percent_clean, xen_blkif_lru_percent_clean, int,
> >> 0);
> >
> > Ditto here.
> >
> >> +MODULE_PARM_DESC(lru_percent_clean,
> >> +"Number of persistent grants to unmap when the list is full");
> >> +
> >> /* Run-time switchable: /sys/module/blkback/parameters/ */
> >> static unsigned int log_stats;
> >> module_param(log_stats, int, 0644);
> >> @@ -96,8 +134,8 @@ struct pending_req {
> >> unsigned short operation;
> >> int status;
> >> struct list_head free_list;
> >> - DECLARE_BITMAP(unmap_seg, BLKIF_MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_REQUEST);
> >> struct page *pages[BLKIF_MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_REQUEST];
> >> + struct persistent_gnt
> >> *persistent_gnts[BLKIF_MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_REQUEST];
> >> };
> >>
> >> #define BLKBACK_INVALID_HANDLE (~0)
> >> @@ -119,36 +157,6 @@ struct xen_blkbk {
> >> static struct xen_blkbk *blkbk;
> >>
> >> /*
> >> - * Maximum number of grant pages that can be mapped in blkback.
> >> - * BLKIF_MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_REQUEST * RING_SIZE is the maximum number of
> >> - * pages that blkback will persistently map.
> >> - * Currently, this is:
> >> - * RING_SIZE = 32 (for all known ring types)
> >> - * BLKIF_MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_REQUEST = 11
> >> - * sizeof(struct persistent_gnt) = 48
> >> - * So the maximum memory used to store the grants is:
> >> - * 32 * 11 * 48 = 16896 bytes
> >> - */
> >> -static inline unsigned int max_mapped_grant_pages(enum blkif_protocol
> >> protocol)
> >> -{
> >> - switch (protocol) {
> >> - case BLKIF_PROTOCOL_NATIVE:
> >> - return __CONST_RING_SIZE(blkif, PAGE_SIZE) *
> >> - BLKIF_MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_REQUEST;
> >> - case BLKIF_PROTOCOL_X86_32:
> >> - return __CONST_RING_SIZE(blkif_x86_32, PAGE_SIZE) *
> >> - BLKIF_MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_REQUEST;
> >> - case BLKIF_PROTOCOL_X86_64:
> >> - return __CONST_RING_SIZE(blkif_x86_64, PAGE_SIZE) *
> >> - BLKIF_MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_REQUEST;
> >> - default:
> >> - BUG();
> >> - }
> >> - return 0;
> >> -}
> >> -
> >> -
> >> -/*
> >> * Little helpful macro to figure out the index and virtual address of the
> >> * pending_pages[..]. For each 'pending_req' we have have up to
> >> * BLKIF_MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_REQUEST (11) pages. The seg would be from 0
> >> through
> >> @@ -239,13 +247,19 @@ static void make_response(struct xen_blkif *blkif,
> >> u64 id,
> >> (n) = (&(pos)->node != NULL) ? rb_next(&(pos)->node) : NULL)
> >>
> >>
> >> -static int add_persistent_gnt(struct rb_root *root,
> >> +static int add_persistent_gnt(struct xen_blkif *blkif,
> >> struct persistent_gnt *persistent_gnt)
> >> {
> >> - struct rb_node **new = &(root->rb_node), *parent = NULL;
> >> + struct rb_node **new = NULL, *parent = NULL;
> >> struct persistent_gnt *this;
> >>
> >> + if (blkif->persistent_gnt_c >= xen_blkif_max_pgrants) {
> >> + if (!blkif->vbd.overflow_max_grants)
> >> + blkif->vbd.overflow_max_grants = 1;
> >> + return -EBUSY;
> >> + }
> >> /* Figure out where to put new node */
> >> + new = &blkif->persistent_gnts.rb_node;
> >> while (*new) {
> >> this = container_of(*new, struct persistent_gnt, node);
> >>
> >> @@ -259,19 +273,23 @@ static int add_persistent_gnt(struct rb_root *root,
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >> }
> >> }
> >> -
> >> + bitmap_zero(persistent_gnt->flags, PERSISTENT_GNT_FLAGS_SIZE);
> >> + set_bit(PERSISTENT_GNT_ACTIVE, persistent_gnt->flags);
> >> /* Add new node and rebalance tree. */
> >> rb_link_node(&(persistent_gnt->node), parent, new);
> >> - rb_insert_color(&(persistent_gnt->node), root);
> >> + rb_insert_color(&(persistent_gnt->node), &blkif->persistent_gnts);
> >> + blkif->persistent_gnt_c++;
> >> + atomic_inc(&blkif->persistent_gnt_in_use);
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> -static struct persistent_gnt *get_persistent_gnt(struct rb_root *root,
> >> +static struct persistent_gnt *get_persistent_gnt(struct xen_blkif *blkif,
> >> grant_ref_t gref)
> >> {
> >> struct persistent_gnt *data;
> >> - struct rb_node *node = root->rb_node;
> >> + struct rb_node *node = NULL;
> >>
> >> + node = blkif->persistent_gnts.rb_node;
> >> while (node) {
> >> data = container_of(node, struct persistent_gnt, node);
> >>
> >> @@ -279,12 +297,25 @@ static struct persistent_gnt
> >> *get_persistent_gnt(struct rb_root *root,
> >> node = node->rb_left;
> >> else if (gref > data->gnt)
> >> node = node->rb_right;
> >> - else
> >> + else {
> >> + WARN_ON(test_bit(PERSISTENT_GNT_ACTIVE,
> >> data->flags));
> >
> > Ouch. Is that even safe? Doesn't that mean that somebody is using this and
> > we just
> > usurped it?
>
> It is not safe for sure regarding data integrity, but a buggy frontend
> can send a request with the same grant for all the segments, and now
> that you make me think of it, this should be ratelimited to prevent a
> malicious frontend from flooding the Dom0.
<nods>
>
> >> + set_bit(PERSISTENT_GNT_ACTIVE, data->flags);
> >> + atomic_inc(&blkif->persistent_gnt_in_use);
> >> return data;
> >> + }
> >> }
> >> return NULL;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static void put_persistent_gnt(struct xen_blkif *blkif,
> >> + struct persistent_gnt *persistent_gnt)
> >> +{
> >> + WARN_ON(!test_bit(PERSISTENT_GNT_ACTIVE, persistent_gnt->flags));
> >> + set_bit(PERSISTENT_GNT_USED, persistent_gnt->flags);
> >> + clear_bit(PERSISTENT_GNT_ACTIVE, persistent_gnt->flags);
> >> + atomic_dec(&blkif->persistent_gnt_in_use);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static void free_persistent_gnts(struct xen_blkif *blkif, struct rb_root
> >> *root,
> >> unsigned int num)
> >> {
> >> @@ -322,6 +353,122 @@ static void free_persistent_gnts(struct xen_blkif
> >> *blkif, struct rb_root *root,
> >> BUG_ON(num != 0);
> >> }
> >>
> >
> > Might need need to say something about locking..
>
> I've added the following comment:
>
> /*
> * We don't need locking around the persistent grant helpers
> * because blkback uses a single-thread for each backed, so we
> * can be sure that this functions will never be called recursively.
> *
> * The only exception to that is put_persistent_grant, that can be called
> * from interrupt context (by xen_blkbk_unmap), so we have to use atomic
> * bit operations to modify the flags of a persistent grant and to count
> * the number of used grants.
> */
>
Great. Thanks.
> >
> >> +static void unmap_purged_grants(struct work_struct *work)
> >> +{
> >> + struct gnttab_unmap_grant_ref unmap[BLKIF_MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_REQUEST];
> >> + struct page *pages[BLKIF_MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_REQUEST];
> >> + struct persistent_gnt *persistent_gnt;
> >> + int ret, segs_to_unmap = 0;
> >> + struct xen_blkif *blkif =
> >> + container_of(work, typeof(*blkif), persistent_purge_work);
> >> +
> >> + while(!list_empty(&blkif->persistent_purge_list)) {
> >> + persistent_gnt =
> >> list_first_entry(&blkif->persistent_purge_list,
> >> + struct persistent_gnt,
> >> + remove_node);
> >> + list_del(&persistent_gnt->remove_node);
> >> +
> >> + gnttab_set_unmap_op(&unmap[segs_to_unmap],
> >> + vaddr(persistent_gnt->page),
> >> + GNTMAP_host_map,
> >> + persistent_gnt->handle);
> >> +
> >> + pages[segs_to_unmap] = persistent_gnt->page;
> >> +
> >> + if (++segs_to_unmap == BLKIF_MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_REQUEST) {
> >> + ret = gnttab_unmap_refs(unmap, NULL, pages,
> >> + segs_to_unmap);
> >> + BUG_ON(ret);
> >> + put_free_pages(blkif, pages, segs_to_unmap);
> >> + segs_to_unmap = 0;
> >> + }
> >> + kfree(persistent_gnt);
> >> + }
> >> + if (segs_to_unmap > 0) {
> >> + ret = gnttab_unmap_refs(unmap, NULL, pages, segs_to_unmap);
> >> + BUG_ON(ret);
> >> + put_free_pages(blkif, pages, segs_to_unmap);
> >> + }
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void purge_persistent_gnt(struct xen_blkif *blkif)
> >> +{
> >> + struct persistent_gnt *persistent_gnt;
> >> + struct rb_node *n;
> >> + int num_clean, total;
> >> + bool scan_used = false;
> >> + struct rb_root *root;
> >> +
> >> + if (blkif->persistent_gnt_c < xen_blkif_max_pgrants ||
> >> + (blkif->persistent_gnt_c == xen_blkif_max_pgrants &&
> >> + !blkif->vbd.overflow_max_grants)) {
> >> + return;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (work_pending(&blkif->persistent_purge_work)) {
> >> + pr_alert_ratelimited(DRV_PFX "Scheduled work from previous
> >> purge is still pending, cannot purge list\n");
> >> + return;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + num_clean = (xen_blkif_max_pgrants / 100) *
> >> xen_blkif_lru_percent_clean;
> >> + num_clean = blkif->persistent_gnt_c - xen_blkif_max_pgrants +
> >> num_clean;
> >> + num_clean = num_clean > blkif->persistent_gnt_c ?
> >> + blkif->persistent_gnt_c : num_clean;
> >
> > I think you can do:
> > num_clean = min(blkif->persistent_gnt_c, num_clean);
> > ?
>
> D'oh! sure, thanks for spotting that.
>
> >> + if (num_clean >
> >> + (blkif->persistent_gnt_c -
> >> + atomic_read(&blkif->persistent_gnt_in_use)))
> >> + return;
> >> +
> >> + total = num_clean;
> >> +
> >> + pr_debug(DRV_PFX "Going to purge %d persistent grants\n", num_clean);
> >> +
> >> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&blkif->persistent_purge_list);
> >> + root = &blkif->persistent_gnts;
> >> +purge_list:
> >> + foreach_grant_safe(persistent_gnt, n, root, node) {
> >> + BUG_ON(persistent_gnt->handle ==
> >> + BLKBACK_INVALID_HANDLE);
> >> +
> >> + if (test_bit(PERSISTENT_GNT_ACTIVE, persistent_gnt->flags))
> >> + continue;
> >> + if (!scan_used &&
> >> + (test_bit(PERSISTENT_GNT_USED, persistent_gnt->flags)))
> >> + continue;
> >> +
> >> + rb_erase(&persistent_gnt->node, root);
> >> + list_add(&persistent_gnt->remove_node,
> >> + &blkif->persistent_purge_list);
> >> + if (--num_clean == 0)
> >> + goto finished;
> >
> > The check (if num_clean > .. atomic_read) means that by the time we
> > get here and try to remove some of them, the blkif->persistent_gnt_in_use
> > might have dramatically changed.
> >
> > Which would mean we could be walking the list here without collecting
> > any grants.
>
> Not really -- at this point, we can assure that there will be no calls
> to get_persistent_grant (because we are executing this code from
> xen_blkif_schedule), there can only be calls to put_persistent_gnt,
> which means that the number of currently used grants will go down, but
> never up, so we will always be able to remove the requested number of
> grants.
<nods>
>
> >
> > Thought on the second pass we would hopefully get the PERSISTENT_GNT_USED
> > but might also hit that case.
> >
> > Is that a case we need to worry about? I mean if we hit it, then num_clean
> > is less than the total. Perhaps at that stage we should decrease
> > the 'xen_blkif_lru_percent_clean' to a smaller number as we are probably
> > going to hit the same issue next time around?
>
> I haven't really thought about that, because even on busy blkbacks I've
> been able to execute the LRU without problems.
OK. Then lets not worry about it.
>
> >
> > And conversely - the next time we run this code and num_clean == total
> > then we can increase the 'xen_blkif_lru_percent_clean' to its original
> > value?
> >
> > That would mean we need somewhere a new value (blkif specific) that
> > would serve the role of being a local version of
> > 'xen_blkif_lru_percent_clean'
> > that can be from 0 -> xen_blkif_lru_percent_clean?
> >
> > Or is this case I am thinking of overblown and you did not hit it when
> > running stress-tests with this code?
>
> Not really, the only case I can think might be problematic is for
> example when you have xen_blkif_max_pgrants == 352 and reduce it to 10,
> then if blkback is very busy it might take some time to find a window
> where only 10 persistent grants are used.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >> + }
> >> + /*
> >> + * If we get here it means we also need to start cleaning
> >> + * grants that were used since last purge in order to cope
> >> + * with the requested num
> >> + */
> >> + if (!scan_used) {
> >> + pr_debug(DRV_PFX "Still missing %d purged frames\n",
> >> num_clean);
> >> + scan_used = true;
> >> + goto purge_list;
> >> + }
> >> +finished:
> >> + /* Remove the "used" flag from all the persistent grants */
> >> + foreach_grant_safe(persistent_gnt, n, root, node) {
> >> + BUG_ON(persistent_gnt->handle ==
> >> + BLKBACK_INVALID_HANDLE);
> >> + clear_bit(PERSISTENT_GNT_USED, persistent_gnt->flags);
> >
> > The 'used' flag does not sound right. I can't place it but I would
> > think another name is better.
> >
> > Perhaps 'WALKED' ? 'TOUCHED' ? 'NOT_TOO_FRESH'? 'STALE'? 'WAS_ACTIVE'?
> >
> > Hm, perhaps 'WAS_ACTIVE'? Or maybe the 'USED' is right.
> >
> > Either way, I am not a native speaker so lets not get hanged up on this.
>
> I'm not a native speaker either, maybe WAS_ACTIVE is a better
> definittion? Or UTILIZED?
<shrugs> Either way. Up to you.
>
> >
> >> + }
> >> + blkif->persistent_gnt_c -= (total - num_clean);
> >> + blkif->vbd.overflow_max_grants = 0;
> >> +
> >> + /* We can defer this work */
> >> + INIT_WORK(&blkif->persistent_purge_work, unmap_purged_grants);
> >> + schedule_work(&blkif->persistent_purge_work);
> >> + pr_debug(DRV_PFX "Purged %d/%d\n", (total - num_clean), total);
> >> + return;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> /*
> >> * Retrieve from the 'pending_reqs' a free pending_req structure to be
> >> used.
> >> */
> >> @@ -453,12 +600,12 @@ irqreturn_t xen_blkif_be_int(int irq, void *dev_id)
> >> static void print_stats(struct xen_blkif *blkif)
> >> {
> >> pr_info("xen-blkback (%s): oo %3llu | rd %4llu | wr %4llu | f
> >> %4llu"
> >> - " | ds %4llu | pg: %4u/%4u\n",
> >> + " | ds %4llu | pg: %4u/%4d\n",
> >> current->comm, blkif->st_oo_req,
> >> blkif->st_rd_req, blkif->st_wr_req,
> >> blkif->st_f_req, blkif->st_ds_req,
> >> blkif->persistent_gnt_c,
> >> - max_mapped_grant_pages(blkif->blk_protocol));
> >> + xen_blkif_max_pgrants);
> >> blkif->st_print = jiffies + msecs_to_jiffies(10 * 1000);
> >> blkif->st_rd_req = 0;
> >> blkif->st_wr_req = 0;
> >> @@ -470,6 +617,7 @@ int xen_blkif_schedule(void *arg)
> >> {
> >> struct xen_blkif *blkif = arg;
> >> struct xen_vbd *vbd = &blkif->vbd;
> >> + unsigned long timeout;
> >>
> >> xen_blkif_get(blkif);
> >>
> >> @@ -479,13 +627,21 @@ int xen_blkif_schedule(void *arg)
> >> if (unlikely(vbd->size != vbd_sz(vbd)))
> >> xen_vbd_resize(blkif);
> >>
> >> - wait_event_interruptible(
> >> + timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(xen_blkif_lru_interval);
> >> +
> >> + timeout = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(
> >> blkif->wq,
> >> - blkif->waiting_reqs || kthread_should_stop());
> >> - wait_event_interruptible(
> >> + blkif->waiting_reqs || kthread_should_stop(),
> >> + timeout);
> >> + if (timeout == 0)
> >> + goto purge_gnt_list;
> >
> > So if the system admin decided that the value of zero in
> > xen_blkif_lru_interval
> > was perfect, won't we timeout immediately and keep on going to the goto
> > statement,
> > and then looping around?
>
> Yes, we would go looping around purge_gnt_list.
>
> >
> > I think we need some sanity checking that the xen_blkif_lru_interval and
> > perhaps the other parameters are sane. And sadly we cannot do that
> > in the init function as the system admin might do this:
> >
> > for fun in `ls -1 /sys/modules/xen_blkback/parameters`
> > do
> > echo 0 > /sys/modules/xen_blkback/parameters/$a
> > done
> >
> > and reset everything to zero. Yikes.
>
> That's one of the reasons why xen_blkif_lru_interval is not public, but
> anyway if someone is so "clever" to export xen_blkif_lru_interval and
> then change it to 0...
Right. Lets not make it possible then.
>
> >
> >
> >> + timeout = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(
> >
> > if (blkif->vbd.feature_gnt_persistent) {
> > timeout = msecs_to_jiffiers(..)
> > timeout = wait_event_interruptple_timeout
> >> blkbk->pending_free_wq,
> >> !list_empty(&blkbk->pending_free) ||
> >> - kthread_should_stop());
> >> + kthread_should_stop(),
> >> + timeout);
> >> + if (timeout == 0)
> >> + goto purge_gnt_list;
> >>
> >> blkif->waiting_reqs = 0;
> >> smp_mb(); /* clear flag *before* checking for work */
> >> @@ -493,6 +649,14 @@ int xen_blkif_schedule(void *arg)
> >> if (do_block_io_op(blkif))
> >> blkif->waiting_reqs = 1;
> >>
> >> +purge_gnt_list:
> >> + if (blkif->vbd.feature_gnt_persistent &&
> >> + time_after(jiffies, blkif->next_lru)) {
> >> + purge_persistent_gnt(blkif);
> >> + blkif->next_lru = jiffies +
> >> + msecs_to_jiffies(xen_blkif_lru_interval);
> >
> > You can make this more than 80 characters.
> >
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> shrink_free_pagepool(blkif, xen_blkif_max_buffer_pages);
> >>
> >> if (log_stats && time_after(jiffies, blkif->st_print))
> >> @@ -504,7 +668,7 @@ int xen_blkif_schedule(void *arg)
> >> /* Free all persistent grant pages */
> >> if (!RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&blkif->persistent_gnts))
> >> free_persistent_gnts(blkif, &blkif->persistent_gnts,
> >> - blkif->persistent_gnt_c);
> >> + blkif->persistent_gnt_c);
> >>
> >> BUG_ON(!RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&blkif->persistent_gnts));
> >> blkif->persistent_gnt_c = 0;
> >> @@ -536,8 +700,10 @@ static void xen_blkbk_unmap(struct pending_req *req)
> >> int ret;
> >>
> >> for (i = 0; i < req->nr_pages; i++) {
> >> - if (!test_bit(i, req->unmap_seg))
> >> + if (req->persistent_gnts[i] != NULL) {
> >> + put_persistent_gnt(blkif, req->persistent_gnts[i]);
> >> continue;
> >> + }
> >
> > Aha, the req->unmap_seg bitmap is not used here anymore! You might want to
> > mention that in the commit description saying that you are also removing
> > this artifact as you don't need it anymore with the superior cleaning
> > method employed here.
>
> Yes, since we are storing the persistent grants used inside the request
> struct (to be able to mark them as "unused" when unmapping), we no
> longer need the bitmap.
Good. Lets just mention it also in the git commit.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
 |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |