lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] [RFC] make hd_struct->in_flight atomic to avoid diskstat corruption
On Thu, Apr 16 2009, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Nikanth, Jens.
>
> Nikanth Karthikesan wrote:
> >> Hmm. Did you observe this behaviour?
> >
> > Sorry, not on current kernels. But on a very old 2.6.5 kernel.
> >
> > Reading Documentation/iostats.txt and the changelog of commit
> > e71bf0d0ee89e51b92776391c5634938236977d5 made me assume that this could be a
> > problem even today.
>
> The only problem we can run into there is if a request doesn't get
> attributed to a partition on issue but gets attributed to a partition
> on completion, which seems to be possible if a new partition is added
> while IO on the whole device which fell into the new partition area is
> already in progress, which, on the first glance, seems possible if the
> admin tries really hard. I think we can get around the problem by
> doing part->in_flight = min(max(new_val, part0->in_flight), 0) in
> dec_in_flight(). This is pretty extreme corner case tho.

Heh, that is pretty extreme. I'd prefer just quiescing the queue,
perhaps we should do that for partition map swaps.

> >> A quick glance at the code reveals
> >> that the callers of part_inc_in_flight() and part_dec_in_flight() in the
> >> block layer are always done under the queue lock. Ditto
> >> part_round_stats(), which calls part_round_stats_single() and also needs
> >> protection for in_flight.
> >>
> >> That basically just leaves the code reading this out and reporting, and
> >> driver calls to part_round_stats(). I'd suggest looking there instead,
> >> we're not going to make ->in_flight an atomic just because of some
> >> silliness there that could be fixed.
> >
> > Isn't this also true for the stats protected by the
> > part_stat_lock()? Only places where we are only reading seems to be
> > called without the queue lock.
>
> part_stat_lock() doesn't protect against simultaneous access. I don't
> think we have any place where in_flight is updated without queuelock
> and the counters being equal to or smaller then ulong, reading
> shouldn't be a problem.
>
> I don't think the bug you saw in 2.6.5 kernel applies to upstream
> kernel. The minus in_flight value was seen on the diskstats of the
> whole device which can't be affected by partition coming up while IOs
> are in progress.

Plus at least early versions of the SLES9 kernel had a missing lock
around io stat updates for SCSI. But that has been plugged for a long
time, so probably unrelated to this case as well.

--
Jens Axboe



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-04-16 18:35    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans