On Fri, 13 May 2011 09:55:03 +0100, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 01:57:22PM -0700, Venkateswararao Jujjuri (JV) wrote:
> > VirtFS (fileserver base on 9P) performs many blocking system calls in the
> > vCPU context. This effort is to move the blocking calls out of vCPU/IO
> > thread context, into asynchronous threads.
> >
> > Anthony's " Add hard build dependency on glib" patch and
> > Kevin/Stefan's coroutine effort is a prerequisite.
> >
> > This patch set contains:
> > - Converting all 9pfs calls into coroutines.
> > - Each 9P operation will be modified for:
> > - Remove post* functions. These are our call back functions which makes
> > the code very hard to read. Now with coroutines, we can achieve the
> > same
> > state machine model with nice sequential code flow.
> > - Move errno access near to the local_syscall()
> > - Introduce asynchronous threading
> >
> > This series has the basic infrastructure and few routines like
> > mkdir,monod,unlink,readdir,xattr,lstat, etc converted.
> > Currently we are working on converting and testing other 9P operations also
> > into this model and those patches will follow shortly.
> >
> > Removing callback functions made some of the patches little lengthy.
>
> This long patch series adds temporary structs and marshalling code for
> each file system operation - I think none of this is necessary. Instead
> we can exploit coroutines more:
>
> The point of coroutines is that you can suspend a thread of control (a
> call-stack, not an OS-level thread) and can re-enter it later. We
> should make coroutines thread-safe (i.e. work outside of the global
> mutex) and then allow switching a coroutine from a QEMU thread to a
> worker thread and back again:
>
> int coroutine_fn v9fs_co_readdir(V9fsState *s, V9fsFidState *fidp,
> struct dirent **dent)
> {
> int ret = 0;
>
> v9fs_co_run_in_worker({
> errno = 0;
> *dent = s->ops->readdir(&s->ctx, fidp->fs.dir);
> if (!*dent && errno) {
> ret = -errno;
> }
> });
> return ret;
> }
>
> v9fs_co_readdir() can be called from a QEMU thread. The block of code
> inside v9fs_co_run_in_worker() will be executed in a worker thread.
> Notice that no marshalling variables is necessary at all; we can use the
> function arguments and local variables because this is still the same
> function!
>
> When control reaches the end of the v9fs_co_run_in_worker() block,
> execution is resumed in a QEMU thread and the function then returns ret.
> It would be incorrect to return inside the v9fs_co_run_in_worker() block
> because at that point we're still inside the worker thread.
>
> Here is how v9fs_co_run_in_worker() does its magic:
>
> #define v9fs_co_run_in_worker(block) \
> { \
> BH *co_bh; \
> \
> co_bh = qemu_bh_new(co_run_in_worker_bh, qemu_coroutine_self()); \
> qemu_bh_schedule(co_bh); \
> qemu_coroutine_yield(); /* re-entered in worker thread */ \
> qemu_bh_delete(co_bh); \
> \
> block; \
> \
> qemu_coroutine_yield(); /* re-entered in QEMU thread */ \
> }
>
> void co_run_in_worker_bh(void *opaque)
> {
> Coroutine *co = opaque;
>
> g_thread_pool_push(pool, co, NULL);
> }
>
> void worker_thread_fn(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
> {
> Coroutine *co = user_data;
> char byte = 0;
> ssize_t len;
>
> qemu_coroutine_enter(co, NULL);
>
> g_async_queue_push(v9fs_pool.completed, co);
> do {
> len = write(v9fs_pool.wfd, &byte, sizeof(byte));
> } while (len == -1 && errno == EINTR);
> }
>
> void process_req_done(void *arg)
> {
> Coroutine *co;
> char byte;
> ssize_t len;
>
> do {
> len = read(v9fs_pool.rfd, &byte, sizeof(byte));
> } while (len == -1 && errno == EINTR);
>
> while ((co = g_async_queue_try_pop(v9fs_pool.completed)) != NULL) {
> qemu_coroutine_enter(co, NULL);
> }
> }
>
> I typed this code out in the email, it has not been compiled or tested.
>
> If you decide to eliminate coroutines entirely in the future and use
> worker threads exclusively to process requests, then there are clearly
> marked sections in the code: anything inside v9fs_co_run_in_worker()
> must be thread-safe already and anything outside it needs to be audited
> and made thread-safe. The changes required are smaller than those if
> your current patch series was applied. I wanted to mention this point
> to show that this doesn't paint virtfs into a corner.
>
> So where does this leave virtfs? No marshalling is necessary and
> blocking operations can be performed inline using
> v9fs_co_run_in_worker() blocks. The codebase will be a lot smaller.
>
> Does this seem reasonable?
>
Do we really need bottom halfs here ? can't we achieve the same with
v9fs_qemu_submit_request() and making the glib thread
function callback (request.func())to do qemu_coroutine_enter()
like:
int v9fs_co_readdir(V9fsState *s, V9fsFidState *fidp, struct dirent **dent)
{
v9fs_wthread_enter();
s->ops->readdir(&s->ctx, fidp->fs.dir);
v9fs_wthread_exit();
}
v9fs_worker_thread_enter()
{
v9fs_qemu_submit_request(v9fs_worker_request);
qemu_coroutine_yield();
}
v9fs_coroutine_woker_func()
{
qemu_coroutine_enter(coroutine, NULL);
}
I also wonder whether additional bottom halfs and additional
setcontext/setjmp that we end up with will have a performance impact compared
to what we have currently ?
-aneesh
