Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1388655

Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] block: avoid to call .bi_end_io() recursively

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Wed, Apr 27 2016, Ming Lei wrote:

> There were reports about heavy stack use by recursive calling
> .bi_end_io()([1][2][3]). For example, more than 16K stack is
> consumed in a single bio complete path[3], and in [2] stack
> overflow can be triggered if 20 nested dm-crypt is used.
>
> Also patches[1] [2] [3] were posted for addressing the issue,
> but never be merged. And the idea in these patches is basically
> similar, all serializes the recursive calling of .bi_end_io() by
> percpu list.
>
> This patch still takes the same idea, but uses bio_list to
> implement it, which turns out more simple and the code becomes
> more readable meantime.
>
> One corner case which wasn't covered before is that
> bi_endio() may be scheduled to run in process context(such
> as btrfs), and this patch just bypasses the optimizing for
> that case because one new context should have enough stack space,
> and this approach isn't capable of optimizing it too because
> there isn't easy way to get a per-task linked list head.
>
> xfstests(-g auto) is run with this patch and no regression is
> found on ext4, xfs and btrfs.
>
> [1] http://marc.info/?t=121428502000004&r=1&w=2
> [2] http://marc.info/?l=dm-devel&m=139595190620008&w=2
> [3] http://marc.info/?t=145974644100001&r=1&w=2
>
> Cc: Shaun Tancheff <shaun.tancheff@seagate.com>
> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
> Cc: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
> Cc: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
> Cc: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com>
> ---
>  block/bio.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  1 file changed, 55 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/bio.c b/block/bio.c
> index 807d25e..6b4ca7b 100644
> --- a/block/bio.c
> +++ b/block/bio.c
> @@ -68,6 +68,8 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(bio_slab_lock);
>  static struct bio_slab *bio_slabs;
>  static unsigned int bio_slab_nr, bio_slab_max;
>  
> +static DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct bio_list *, bio_end_list) = { NULL };
> +
>  static struct kmem_cache *bio_find_or_create_slab(unsigned int extra_size)
>  {
>  	unsigned int sz = sizeof(struct bio) + extra_size;
> @@ -1737,6 +1739,58 @@ static inline bool bio_remaining_done(struct bio *bio)
>  	return false;
>  }
>  
> +static void __bio_endio(struct bio *bio)
> +{
> +	if (bio->bi_end_io)
> +		bio->bi_end_io(bio);
> +}
> +
> +/* disable local irq when manipulating the percpu bio_list */
> +static void unwind_bio_endio(struct bio *bio)
> +{
> +	struct bio_list *bl;
> +	unsigned long flags;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * We can't optimize if bi_endio() is scheduled to run from
> +	 * process context because there isn't easy way to get a
> +	 * per-task bio list head or allocate a per-task variable.
> +	 */
> +	if (!in_interrupt()) {
> +		/*
> +		 * It has to be a top calling when it is run from
> +		 * process context.
> +		 */
> +		WARN_ON(this_cpu_read(bio_end_list));
> +		__bio_endio(bio);
> +		return;
> +	}
> +
> +	local_irq_save(flags);
> +	bl = __this_cpu_read(bio_end_list);
> +	if (!bl) {
> +		struct bio_list bl_in_stack;
> +
> +		bl = &bl_in_stack;
> +		bio_list_init(bl);
> +		__this_cpu_write(bio_end_list, bl);

The patch seems to make sense, but this bit bothers me.
You are expecting bl_in_stack to still be usable after this block of
code completes.  While it probably is, I don't think it is a good idea
to depend on it.
If you move the "struct bio_list bl_in_stack" to the top of the function
I would be a lot happier.

Or you could change the code to:

   if (bl) {
       bio_list_add(bl, bio);
   } else {
       struct bio_list bl_in_stack;
       ... use bl_in_stack,
       while loop
       set bio_end_list to NULL
   }

and the code flow would all be must clearer.

Thanks,
NeilBrown

> +	} else {
> +		bio_list_add(bl, bio);
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	while (bio) {
> +		local_irq_restore(flags);
> +		__bio_endio(bio);
> +		local_irq_save(flags);
> +> +		bio = bio_list_pop(bl);
> +	}
> +	__this_cpu_write(bio_end_list, NULL);
> + out:
> +	local_irq_restore(flags);
> +}
> +
>  /**
>   * bio_endio - end I/O on a bio
>   * @bio:	bio
> @@ -1765,8 +1819,7 @@ again:
>  		goto again;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (bio->bi_end_io)
> -		bio->bi_end_io(bio);
> +	unwind_bio_endio(bio);
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(bio_endio);
>  
> -- 
> 1.9.1
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH v2 3/3] block: avoid to call .bi_end_io() recursively Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com> - 2016-04-27 06:00 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] block: avoid to call .bi_end_io() recursively NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> - 2016-04-27 06:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] block: avoid to call .bi_end_io() recursively Ming Lei <ming.lei@canonical.com> - 2016-04-27 06:10 +0200

csiph-web