From owner-freebsd-alpha@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 23 01:07:06 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67BF216A4B3; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:07:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exc-1.cc.CyberCity.dk (esplanaden.cybercity.dk [212.242.40.114]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A2CA43F3F; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:07:04 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk ([172.16.7.254]) by exc-1.cc.CyberCity.dk over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Thu, 23 Oct 2003 10:07:02 +0200 Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id h9N7CX0l000832; Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:12:33 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@phk.freebsd.dk) To: mjacob@feral.com From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 22 Oct 2003 06:02:58 PDT." <20031022055417.L93661@beppo> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 09:12:33 +0200 Message-ID: <831.1066893153@critter.freebsd.dk> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Oct 2003 08:07:02.0917 (UTC) FILETIME=[A43EC350:01C3993C] cc: alpha@freebsd.org cc: current@freebsd.org cc: 'Kris Kennaway' Subject: Re: Sleeping on "isp_mboxwaiting" with the following non-sleepablelocks held: X-BeenThere: freebsd-alpha@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting FreeBSD to the Alpha List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 08:07:06 -0000 In message <20031022055417.L93661@beppo>, Matthew Jacob writes: >[1]: by 'sleep', I mean if I do *my* locking right, I should be able to >yield the processor and wait for an event (an interrupt in this case). Not so when your device driver is entered through the devsw->strategy() function, since that [cw]ould deadlock the entire disk-I/O system until you return back up. Ideally, devsw->strategy() should just queue the request and return immediately. In a world where context switches were free, scheduling a task_queue to run foostart() (if necessary) would be the way to do things. Most drivers call their own foostart() from strategy(), and as long as foostart() does not go on long-term vacation, this is also OK, poking a few registers, doing a bit of BUSDMA work is acceptable. But sleeping is not OK, mostly because a lot of sleeps may not properly terminate in case of a memory shortage, and the way we clear up a memory shortage is to page something out, and to page something out we need to issue disk I/O, but somebody is holding that hostage by sleeping in a driver... I will conceede that there are a certain small class of legitimate sleeps that could be performed, unfortunately we can not automatically tell an OK sleep from a not OK sleep, and therefore the decision was to ban all sleeps, until such time as we had a case of something that could not be (sensibly) done without the ability to sleep. I realize that in this case, you're sitting below CAM and scsi_??.c and have very little say in what happens between devsw->strategy() and your driver. As I read the original report, this is a case of error-handling. Considering how long time error handling often takes and how imperfect results one gets a lot of the time, error handling should never strategy() sleep or take a long time, since that will eliminates the chances that the system can flush dirty data to other devices as part of a shutdown or panic. At some point soon, I plan to start measuring how much time drivers spend in their strategy() routine and any offenders will be put on notice because this is a brilliant way to hose our overall system performance. I'm not going to set any specific performance goal at this time, but I think we can agree that more than one millisecond is way over the line. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.