diff mbox

[v1,7/9] ext4: stop using VFS for dirty superblock management

Message ID 1332254489-2300-8-git-send-email-dedekind1@gmail.com
State Superseded, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Artem Bityutskiy March 20, 2012, 2:41 p.m. UTC 
From: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>

Do not use VFS for managing dirty superblock but do it inside ext4. Remove the
'ext4_write_super()' VFS callback and instead, schedule a delayed work when the
superblock is marked as dirty. Use the 'dio_unwritten_wq' which we already have
for these purposes.

We add memory barriers to make sure the 's_dirt' flag changes are visible to
other CPUs as soon as possible to avoid queuing unnecessary works.

The big changes comparing to the previous behavior:
1. We use 'dio_unwritten' queue, so the superblock will be written by
   per-filesystem 'ext4-dio-unwrit' thread, instead of 'sync_supers' thread.
2. We allocate memory in 'ext4_mark_super_dirty()'.

Note: the final goal is to get rid of the 'sync_supers()' kernel thread which
wakes up every 5 seconds and even if there is nothing to do. Thus, we are
pushing superblock management from VFS down to file-systems.

Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>
---
 fs/ext4/super.c |   73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
 1 files changed, 63 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

Comments

Artem Bityutskiy March 21, 2012, 8:26 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 16:41 +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> +       INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&sbwork->dwork, write_super);
> +       sbwork->sb = sb;
> +       delay = msecs_to_jiffies(dirty_writeback_interval * 10);
> +       queue_delayed_work(sbi->dio_unwritten_wq, &sbwork->dwork, delay); 

I've just realized that the side-effect of using DIO workqueue is that
'syncfs()' will also synchronize the superblock because it flushes the
workqueue:

static int ext4_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
{
 	...
        flush_workqueue(sbi->dio_unwritten_wq);
	...
}

But before my change, it seems the superblock was not flushed on
'syncfs()', at least I do no see how this would be done. However, I
think it is OK because I think it is correct to write the dirty
superblock out on 'syncfs()', right?
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
index d9543f3..7d453f7 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/super.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
@@ -73,7 +73,6 @@  static const char *ext4_decode_error(struct super_block *sb, int errno,
 static int ext4_remount(struct super_block *sb, int *flags, char *data);
 static int ext4_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf);
 static int ext4_unfreeze(struct super_block *sb);
-static void ext4_write_super(struct super_block *sb);
 static int ext4_freeze(struct super_block *sb);
 static struct dentry *ext4_mount(struct file_system_type *fs_type, int flags,
 		       const char *dev_name, void *data);
@@ -1294,7 +1293,6 @@  static const struct super_operations ext4_nojournal_sops = {
 	.dirty_inode	= ext4_dirty_inode,
 	.drop_inode	= ext4_drop_inode,
 	.evict_inode	= ext4_evict_inode,
-	.write_super	= ext4_write_super,
 	.put_super	= ext4_put_super,
 	.statfs		= ext4_statfs,
 	.remount_fs	= ext4_remount,
@@ -4140,6 +4138,14 @@  static int ext4_commit_super(struct super_block *sb, int sync)
 
 	if (!sbh || block_device_ejected(sb))
 		return error;
+
+	sb->s_dirt = 0;
+	/*
+	 * Make sure we first mark the superblock as clean and then start
+	 * writing it out.
+	 */
+	smp_wmb();
+
 	if (buffer_write_io_error(sbh)) {
 		/*
 		 * Oh, dear.  A previous attempt to write the
@@ -4180,7 +4186,6 @@  static int ext4_commit_super(struct super_block *sb, int sync)
 	es->s_free_inodes_count =
 		cpu_to_le32(percpu_counter_sum_positive(
 				&EXT4_SB(sb)->s_freeinodes_counter));
-	sb->s_dirt = 0;
 	BUFFER_TRACE(sbh, "marking dirty");
 	mark_buffer_dirty(sbh);
 	if (sync) {
@@ -4199,9 +4204,64 @@  static int ext4_commit_super(struct super_block *sb, int sync)
 	return error;
 }
 
+struct sb_delayed_work {
+	struct delayed_work dwork;
+	struct super_block *sb;
+};
+
+static struct sb_delayed_work *work_to_sbwork(struct work_struct *work)
+{
+	struct delayed_work *dwork;
+
+	dwork = container_of(work, struct delayed_work, work);
+	return container_of(dwork, struct sb_delayed_work, dwork);
+}
+
+static void write_super(struct work_struct *work)
+{
+	struct sb_delayed_work *sbwork = work_to_sbwork(work);
+	struct super_block *sb = sbwork->sb;
+
+	kfree(sbwork);
+
+	smp_rmb();
+	if (!sb->s_dirt)
+		return;
+
+	lock_super(sb);
+	ext4_commit_super(sb, 1);
+	unlock_super(sb);
+}
+
 void __ext4_mark_super_dirty(struct super_block *sb)
 {
+	struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb);
+	struct sb_delayed_work *sbwork;
+	unsigned long delay;
+
+	/* Make sure we see 's_dirt' changes ASAP */
+	smp_rmb();
+	if (sb->s_dirt == 1)
+		return;
 	sb->s_dirt = 1;
+	/* Make other CPUs see the 's_dirt' change as soon as possible */
+	smp_wmb();
+
+	sbwork = kmalloc(sizeof(struct sb_delayed_work), GFP_NOFS);
+	if (!sbwork) {
+		/*
+		 * Well, should not be a big deal - the system must be in
+		 * trouble anyway, and the SB will be written out on unmount or
+		 * we may be luckier next time it is marked as dirty.
+		 */
+		sb->s_dirt = 2;
+		return;
+	}
+
+	INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&sbwork->dwork, write_super);
+	sbwork->sb = sb;
+	delay = msecs_to_jiffies(dirty_writeback_interval * 10);
+	queue_delayed_work(sbi->dio_unwritten_wq, &sbwork->dwork, delay);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -4291,13 +4351,6 @@  int ext4_force_commit(struct super_block *sb)
 	return ret;
 }
 
-static void ext4_write_super(struct super_block *sb)
-{
-	lock_super(sb);
-	ext4_commit_super(sb, 1);
-	unlock_super(sb);
-}
-
 static int ext4_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int wait)
 {
 	int ret = 0;