On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 02:08:04PM -0700, Daniel Phillips ([email protected]) wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 August 2007 10:54, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 10:27:59AM -0700, Daniel Phillips ([email protected]) wrote:
> > > > We do not care about one cpu being able to increase its counter
> > > > higher than the limit, such inaccuracy (maximum bios in flight
> > > > thus can be more than limit, difference is equal to the number of
> > > > CPUs - 1) is a price for removing atomic operation. I thought I
> > > > pointed it in the original description, but might forget, that if
> > > > it will be an issue, that atomic operations can be introduced
> > > > there. Any uber-precise measurements in the case when we are
> > > > close to the edge will not give us any benefit at all, since were
> > > > are already in the grey area.
> > >
> > > This is not just inaccurate, it is suicide. Keep leaking throttle
> > > counts and eventually all of them will be gone. No more IO
> > > on that block device!
> >
> > First, because number of increased and decreased operations are the
> > same, so it will dance around limit in both directions.
>
> No. Please go and read it the description of the race again. A count
> gets irretrievably lost because the write operation of the first
> decrement is overwritten by the second. Data gets lost. Atomic
> operations exist to prevent that sort of thing. You either need to use
> them or have a deep understanding of SMP read and write ordering in
> order to preserve data integrity by some equivalent algorithm.
I think you should complete your emotional email with decription of how
atomic types are operated and how processors access data. Just to give a
lesson to those who never knew how SMP works, but create patches and
have the conscience to send them and even discuss.
Then, if of course you will want, which I doubt, you can reread previous
mails and find that it was pointed to that race and possibilities to
solve it way too long ago.
Anyway, I prefer to look like I do not know how SMP and atomic operation
work and thus stay away from this discussion.
> --- 2.6.22.clean/block/ll_rw_blk.c 2007-07-08 16:32:17.000000000 -0700
> +++ 2.6.22/block/ll_rw_blk.c 2007-08-24 12:07:16.000000000 -0700
> @@ -3237,6 +3237,15 @@ end_io:
> */
> void generic_make_request(struct bio *bio)
> {
> + struct request_queue *q = bdev_get_queue(bio->bi_bdev);
> +
> + if (q && q->metric) {
> + int need = bio->bi_reserved = q->metric(bio);
> + bio->queue = q;
In case you have stacked device, this entry will be rewritten and you
will lost all your account data.
> + wait_event_interruptible(q->throttle_wait, atomic_read(&q->available) >= need);
> + atomic_sub(&q->available, need);
> + }
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
