Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
fs/sync: Make sync() satisfy many requests with one invocation
Dave Jones reported RCU stalls, overly long hrtimer interrupts, and amazingly long NMI handlers from a trinity-induced workload involving lots of concurrent sync() calls (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/23/369). There are any number of things that one might do to make sync() behave better under high levels of contention, but it is also the case that multiple concurrent sync() system calls can be satisfied by a single sys_sync() invocation. Given that this situation is reminiscent of rcu_barrier(), this commit applies the rcu_barrier() approach to sys_sync(). This approach uses a global mutex and a sequence counter. The mutex is held across the sync() operation, which eliminates contention between concurrent sync() operations. The counter is incremented at the beginning and end of each sync() operation, so that it is odd while a sync() operation is in progress and even otherwise, just like sequence locks. The code that used to be in sys_sync() is now in do_sync(), and sys_sync() now handles the concurrency. The sys_sync() function first takes a snapshot of the counter, then acquires the mutex, and then takes another snapshot of the counter. If the values of the two snapshots indicate that a full do_sync() executed during the mutex acquisition, the sys_sync() function releases the mutex and returns ("Our work is done!"). Otherwise, sys_sync() increments the counter, invokes do_sync(), and increments the counter again. This approach allows a single call to do_sync() to satisfy an arbitrarily large number of sync() system calls, which should eliminate issues due to large numbers of concurrent invocations of the sync() system call. Changes since v1 (https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/24/683): o Add a pair of memory barriers to keep the increments from bleeding into the do_sync() code. (The failure probability is insanely low, but when you have several hundred million devices running Linux, you can expect several hundred instances of one-in-a-million failures.) o Actually CC some people who have experience in this area. Reported-by: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> Cc: Curt Wohlgemuth <curtw@google.com> Cc: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@fusionio.com> Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Paul Reioux <reioux@gmail.com>
- Loading branch information