On 2018/06/13 23:46, Jan Kara wrote:

On Wed 13-06-18 19:43:47, Tetsuo Handa wrote:

quoted

Can't we utilize RCU grace period (like shown below) ?

Honestly, the variant 1 looks too ugly to me. However variant 2 looks
mostly OK. We can also avoid the schedule_timeout_uninterruptible(HZ / 10)
from your patch by careful handling of the bit waitqueues. Also I'd avoid
the addition argument to wb_writeback() and split the function instead. The
patch resulting from your and mine ideas is attached. Thoughts?

								Honza

+static bool cgwb_start_shutdown(struct bdi_writeback *wb)
+	__releases(cgwb_lock)
+{
+	if (!wb_start_shutdown(wb)) {
+		DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
+		wait_queue_head_t *wqh = bit_waitqueue(&wb->state,
+						       WB_shutting_down);
+		bool sleep;
+
+		prepare_to_wait(wqh, &wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
+		sleep = test_bit(WB_shutting_down, &wb->state);
+		spin_unlock_irq(&cgwb_lock);
+		if (sleep)
+			schedule();
+		return false;
+	}
+	spin_unlock_irq(&cgwb_lock);
+	return true;
+}

Since multiple addresses share bit_wait_table[256], isn't it possible that
cgwb_start_shutdown() prematurely returns false due to wake_up_bit() by
hash-conflicting addresses (i.e. not limited to clear_and_wake_up_bit() from
wb_shutdown())? I think that we cannot be sure without confirming that
test_bit(WB_shutting_down, &wb->state) == false after returning from schedule().