Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/4] xen/blkfront: cleanup stale persistent grants

[Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 08:31:31AM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 06/08/18 18:16, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 01:34:01PM +0200, Juergen Gross wrote:
> >> Add a periodic cleanup function to remove old persistent grants which
> >> are no longer in use on the backend side. This avoids starvation in
> >> case there are lots of persistent grants for a device which no longer
> >> is involved in I/O business.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c | 99 
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >>  1 file changed, 95 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c b/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c
> >> index b5cedccb5d7d..19feb8835fc4 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/block/xen-blkfront.c
> >> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@
> >>  #include <linux/scatterlist.h>
> >>  #include <linux/bitmap.h>
> >>  #include <linux/list.h>
> >> +#include <linux/workqueue.h>
> >>  
> >>  #include <xen/xen.h>
> >>  #include <xen/xenbus.h>
> >> @@ -121,6 +122,9 @@ static inline struct blkif_req *blkif_req(struct 
> >> request *rq)
> >>  
> >>  static DEFINE_MUTEX(blkfront_mutex);
> >>  static const struct block_device_operations xlvbd_block_fops;
> >> +static struct delayed_work blkfront_work;
> >> +static LIST_HEAD(info_list);
> >> +static bool blkfront_work_active;
> >>  
> >>  /*
> >>   * Maximum number of segments in indirect requests, the actual value used 
> >> by
> >> @@ -216,6 +220,7 @@ struct blkfront_info
> >>    /* Save uncomplete reqs and bios for migration. */
> >>    struct list_head requests;
> >>    struct bio_list bio_list;
> >> +  struct list_head info_list;
> >>  };
> >>  
> >>  static unsigned int nr_minors;
> >> @@ -1764,6 +1769,12 @@ static int write_per_ring_nodes(struct 
> >> xenbus_transaction xbt,
> >>    return err;
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> +static void free_info(struct blkfront_info *info)
> >> +{
> >> +  list_del(&info->info_list);
> >> +  kfree(info);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >>  /* Common code used when first setting up, and when resuming. */
> >>  static int talk_to_blkback(struct xenbus_device *dev,
> >>                       struct blkfront_info *info)
> >> @@ -1885,7 +1896,10 @@ static int talk_to_blkback(struct xenbus_device 
> >> *dev,
> >>   destroy_blkring:
> >>    blkif_free(info, 0);
> >>  
> >> -  kfree(info);
> >> +  mutex_lock(&blkfront_mutex);
> >> +  free_info(info);
> >> +  mutex_unlock(&blkfront_mutex);
> >> +
> >>    dev_set_drvdata(&dev->dev, NULL);
> >>  
> >>    return err;
> >> @@ -1996,6 +2010,10 @@ static int blkfront_probe(struct xenbus_device *dev,
> >>    info->handle = simple_strtoul(strrchr(dev->nodename, '/')+1, NULL, 0);
> >>    dev_set_drvdata(&dev->dev, info);
> >>  
> >> +  mutex_lock(&blkfront_mutex);
> >> +  list_add(&info->info_list, &info_list);
> >> +  mutex_unlock(&blkfront_mutex);
> >> +
> >>    return 0;
> >>  }
> >>  
> >> @@ -2306,6 +2324,15 @@ static void blkfront_gather_backend_features(struct 
> >> blkfront_info *info)
> >>    if (indirect_segments <= BLKIF_MAX_SEGMENTS_PER_REQUEST)
> >>            indirect_segments = 0;
> >>    info->max_indirect_segments = indirect_segments;
> >> +
> >> +  if (info->feature_persistent) {
> >> +          mutex_lock(&blkfront_mutex);
> >> +          if (!blkfront_work_active) {
> >> +                  blkfront_work_active = true;
> >> +                  schedule_delayed_work(&blkfront_work, HZ * 10);
> > 
> > Does it make sense to provide a module parameter to rune the schedule
> > of the cleanup routine?
> 
> I don't think this is something anyone would like to tune.
> 
> In case you think it should be tunable I can add a parameter, of course.

We can always add it later if required. I'm fine as-is now.

> > 
> >> +          }
> >> +          mutex_unlock(&blkfront_mutex);
> > 
> > Is it really necessary to have the blkfront_work_active boolean? What
> > happens if you queue the same delayed work more than once?
> 
> In case there is already work queued later calls of
> schedule_delayed_work() will be ignored.
> 
> So yes, I can drop the global boolean (I still need a local flag in
> blkfront_delay_work() for controlling the need to call
> schedule_delayed_work() again).

Can't you just call schedule_delayed_work if info->feature_persistent
is set, even if that means calling it multiple times if multiple
blkfront instances are using persistent grants?

Thanks, Roger.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel