Hi Andrew, On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 6:27 AM, Andrew Morton <a...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Tue, 7 Jan 2014 18:29:27 +0800 Ming Lei <tom.leim...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> __percpu_counter_add() may be called in softirq/hardirq handler >> (such as, blk_mq_queue_exit() is typically called in hardirq/softirq >> handler), so we need to disable local irq when updating the percpu >> counter, otherwise counts may be lost. > > OK. > >> The patch fixes problem that 'rmmod null_blk' may hang in blk_cleanup_queue() >> because of miscounting of request_queue->mq_usage_counter. >> >> ... >> >> --- a/lib/percpu_counter.c >> +++ b/lib/percpu_counter.c >> @@ -75,19 +75,19 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(percpu_counter_set); >> void __percpu_counter_add(struct percpu_counter *fbc, s64 amount, s32 batch) >> { >> s64 count; >> + unsigned long flags; >> >> - preempt_disable(); >> + raw_local_irq_save(flags); >> count = __this_cpu_read(*fbc->counters) + amount; >> if (count >= batch || count <= -batch) { >> - unsigned long flags; >> - raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&fbc->lock, flags); >> + raw_spin_lock(&fbc->lock); >> fbc->count += count; >> - raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fbc->lock, flags); >> + raw_spin_unlock(&fbc->lock); >> __this_cpu_write(*fbc->counters, 0); >> } else { >> __this_cpu_write(*fbc->counters, count); >> } >> - preempt_enable(); >> + raw_local_irq_restore(flags); >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__percpu_counter_add); > > Can this be made more efficient? > > The this_cpu_foo() documentation is fairly dreadful, but way down at > the end of Documentation/this_cpu_ops.txt we find "this_cpu ops are > interrupt safe". So I think this is a more efficient fix: > > --- a/lib/percpu_counter.c~a > +++ a/lib/percpu_counter.c > @@ -82,10 +82,10 @@ void __percpu_counter_add(struct percpu_ > unsigned long flags; > raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&fbc->lock, flags); > fbc->count += count; > + __this_cpu_sub(*fbc->counters, count); > raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&fbc->lock, flags); > - __this_cpu_write(*fbc->counters, 0); > } else { > - __this_cpu_write(*fbc->counters, count); > + this_cpu_add(*fbc->counters, amount); > } > preempt_enable(); > } > > It avoids the local_irq_disable() in the common case, when the CPU > supports efficient this_cpu_add(). It will in rare race situations > permit the cpu-local counter to exceed `batch', but that should be > harmless.
I am wondering if the above patch is more efficient, because: - raw_local_irq_save()/raw_local_irq_restore() should be cheaper than preempt_enable() in theory - except for x86 and s390, other ARCHs have not their own implementation of this_cpu_foo(), and the generic one just disables local interrupt when operating the percpu variable. So I suggest to fix it by replacing preempt_* with raw_local_irq_*. Thanks, -- Ming Lei -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/