From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Michael Stapelberg <stapelberg+linux@google.com>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: [PATCH 5/5] writeback: Use READ_ONCE for unlocked reads of writeback stats
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 12:24:44 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210713102448.30424-5-jack@suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210712165811.13163-1-jack@suse.cz>
We do some unlocked reads of writeback statistics like
avg_write_bandwidth, dirty_ratelimit, or bw_time_stamp. Generally we are
fine with getting somewhat out-of-date values but actually getting
different values in various parts of the functions because the compiler
decided to reload value from original memory location could confuse
calculations. Use READ_ONCE for these unlocked accesses and WRITE_ONCE
for the updates to be on the safe side.
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
---
mm/page-writeback.c | 28 +++++++++++++++-------------
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
index ee5e43a7453e..8ffd8ed37a23 100644
--- a/mm/page-writeback.c
+++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
@@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ static struct fprop_local_percpu *wb_memcg_completions(struct bdi_writeback *wb)
static void wb_min_max_ratio(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
unsigned long *minp, unsigned long *maxp)
{
- unsigned long this_bw = wb->avg_write_bandwidth;
+ unsigned long this_bw = READ_ONCE(wb->avg_write_bandwidth);
unsigned long tot_bw = atomic_long_read(&wb->bdi->tot_write_bandwidth);
unsigned long long min = wb->bdi->min_ratio;
unsigned long long max = wb->bdi->max_ratio;
@@ -898,7 +898,7 @@ static long long pos_ratio_polynom(unsigned long setpoint,
static void wb_position_ratio(struct dirty_throttle_control *dtc)
{
struct bdi_writeback *wb = dtc->wb;
- unsigned long write_bw = wb->avg_write_bandwidth;
+ unsigned long write_bw = READ_ONCE(wb->avg_write_bandwidth);
unsigned long freerun = dirty_freerun_ceiling(dtc->thresh, dtc->bg_thresh);
unsigned long limit = hard_dirty_limit(dtc_dom(dtc), dtc->thresh);
unsigned long wb_thresh = dtc->wb_thresh;
@@ -1121,7 +1121,7 @@ static void wb_update_write_bandwidth(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
&wb->bdi->tot_write_bandwidth) <= 0);
}
wb->write_bandwidth = bw;
- wb->avg_write_bandwidth = avg;
+ wb->avg_write_bandwidth = WRITE_ONCE(avg);
}
static void update_dirty_limit(struct dirty_throttle_control *dtc)
@@ -1330,7 +1330,7 @@ static void wb_update_dirty_ratelimit(struct dirty_throttle_control *dtc,
else
dirty_ratelimit -= step;
- wb->dirty_ratelimit = max(dirty_ratelimit, 1UL);
+ wb->dirty_ratelimit = WRITE_ONCE(max(dirty_ratelimit, 1UL));
wb->balanced_dirty_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit;
trace_bdi_dirty_ratelimit(wb, dirty_rate, task_ratelimit);
@@ -1342,11 +1342,12 @@ static void __wb_update_bandwidth(struct dirty_throttle_control *gdtc,
{
struct bdi_writeback *wb = gdtc->wb;
unsigned long now = jiffies;
- unsigned long elapsed = now - wb->bw_time_stamp;
+ unsigned long elapsed;
unsigned long dirtied;
unsigned long written;
spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
+ elapsed = now - wb->bw_time_stamp;
dirtied = percpu_counter_read(&wb->stat[WB_DIRTIED]);
written = percpu_counter_read(&wb->stat[WB_WRITTEN]);
@@ -1367,7 +1368,7 @@ static void __wb_update_bandwidth(struct dirty_throttle_control *gdtc,
wb->dirtied_stamp = dirtied;
wb->written_stamp = written;
- wb->bw_time_stamp = now;
+ wb->bw_time_stamp = WRITE_ONCE(now);
spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
}
@@ -1391,7 +1392,7 @@ static void wb_bandwidth_estimate_start(struct bdi_writeback *wb)
spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
wb->dirtied_stamp = wb_stat(wb, WB_DIRTIED);
wb->written_stamp = wb_stat(wb, WB_WRITTEN);
- wb->bw_time_stamp = now;
+ wb->bw_time_stamp = WRITE_ONCE(now);
spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
}
}
@@ -1416,7 +1417,7 @@ static unsigned long dirty_poll_interval(unsigned long dirty,
static unsigned long wb_max_pause(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
unsigned long wb_dirty)
{
- unsigned long bw = wb->avg_write_bandwidth;
+ unsigned long bw = READ_ONCE(wb->avg_write_bandwidth);
unsigned long t;
/*
@@ -1438,8 +1439,8 @@ static long wb_min_pause(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
unsigned long dirty_ratelimit,
int *nr_dirtied_pause)
{
- long hi = ilog2(wb->avg_write_bandwidth);
- long lo = ilog2(wb->dirty_ratelimit);
+ long hi = ilog2(READ_ONCE(wb->avg_write_bandwidth));
+ long lo = ilog2(READ_ONCE(wb->dirty_ratelimit));
long t; /* target pause */
long pause; /* estimated next pause */
int pages; /* target nr_dirtied_pause */
@@ -1719,12 +1720,12 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
if (dirty_exceeded && !wb->dirty_exceeded)
wb->dirty_exceeded = 1;
- if (time_is_before_jiffies(wb->bw_time_stamp +
+ if (time_is_before_jiffies(READ_ONCE(wb->bw_time_stamp) +
BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL))
__wb_update_bandwidth(gdtc, mdtc, true);
/* throttle according to the chosen dtc */
- dirty_ratelimit = wb->dirty_ratelimit;
+ dirty_ratelimit = READ_ONCE(wb->dirty_ratelimit);
task_ratelimit = ((u64)dirty_ratelimit * sdtc->pos_ratio) >>
RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT;
max_pause = wb_max_pause(wb, sdtc->wb_dirty);
@@ -2365,7 +2366,8 @@ int do_writepages(struct address_space *mapping, struct writeback_control *wbc)
* but if there's constant writeback being submitted, this makes sure
* writeback bandwidth is updated once in a while.
*/
- if (time_is_before_jiffies(wb->bw_time_stamp + BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL))
+ if (time_is_before_jiffies(READ_ONCE(wb->bw_time_stamp) +
+ BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL))
wb_update_bandwidth(wb);
return ret;
}
--
2.26.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-13 10:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-13 10:24 [PATCH 0/5 v2] writeback: Fix bandwidth estimates Jan Kara
2021-07-13 10:24 ` [PATCH 1/5] writeback: Track number of inodes under writeback Jan Kara
2021-07-13 10:24 ` [PATCH 2/5] writeback: Reliably update bandwidth estimation Jan Kara
2021-07-13 10:24 ` [PATCH 3/5] writeback: Fix bandwidth estimate for spiky workload Jan Kara
2021-07-13 10:24 ` [PATCH 4/5] writeback: Rename domain_update_bandwidth() Jan Kara
2021-07-13 10:24 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2021-07-13 10:32 ` [PATCH 0/5 v2] writeback: Fix bandwidth estimates Jan Kara
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2021-07-13 10:47 [PATCH 0/5 v4] " Jan Kara
2021-07-13 10:47 ` [PATCH 5/5] writeback: Use READ_ONCE for unlocked reads of writeback stats Jan Kara
2021-07-13 10:36 [PATCH 0/5 v3] writeback: Fix bandwidth estimates Jan Kara
2021-07-13 10:36 ` [PATCH 5/5] writeback: Use READ_ONCE for unlocked reads of writeback stats Jan Kara
2021-07-05 16:23 [PATCH 0/5] writeback: Fix bandwidth estimates Jan Kara
2021-07-05 16:23 ` [PATCH 5/5] writeback: Use READ_ONCE for unlocked reads of writeback stats Jan Kara
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210713102448.30424-5-jack@suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=stapelberg+linux@google.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox