lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Aug]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] xen/blkfront: cleanup stale persistent grants
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@suse.com>
> >> ---
> >> 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.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-08-07 16:21    [W:0.119 / U:0.844 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site