On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 01:57:22PM -0700, Venkateswararao Jujjuri
(JV) wrote:
VirtFS (fileserver base on 9P) performs many blocking system calls
in the
vCPU context. This effort is to move the blocking calls out of vCPU/IO
thread context, into asynchronous threads.
Anthony's " Add hard build dependency on glib" patch and
Kevin/Stefan's coroutine effort is a prerequisite.
This patch set contains:
- Converting all 9pfs calls into coroutines.
- Each 9P operation will be modified for:
- Remove post* functions. These are our call back functions
which makes
the code very hard to read. Now with coroutines, we can
achieve the same
state machine model with nice sequential code flow.
- Move errno access near to the local_syscall()
- Introduce asynchronous threading
This series has the basic infrastructure and few routines like
mkdir,monod,unlink,readdir,xattr,lstat, etc converted.
Currently we are working on converting and testing other 9P
operations also
into this model and those patches will follow shortly.
Removing callback functions made some of the patches little lengthy.
This long patch series adds temporary structs and marshalling code for
each file system operation - I think none of this is necessary.
Instead
we can exploit coroutines more:
The point of coroutines is that you can suspend a thread of control (a
call-stack, not an OS-level thread) and can re-enter it later. We
should make coroutines thread-safe (i.e. work outside of the global
mutex) and then allow switching a coroutine from a QEMU thread to a
worker thread and back again:
int coroutine_fn v9fs_co_readdir(V9fsState *s, V9fsFidState *fidp,
struct dirent **dent)
{
int ret = 0;
v9fs_co_run_in_worker({
errno = 0;
*dent = s->ops->readdir(&s->ctx, fidp->fs.dir);
if (!*dent&& errno) {
ret = -errno;
}
});
return ret;
}
v9fs_co_readdir() can be called from a QEMU thread. The block of code
inside v9fs_co_run_in_worker() will be executed in a worker thread.
Notice that no marshalling variables is necessary at all; we can use
the
function arguments and local variables because this is still the same
function!
When control reaches the end of the v9fs_co_run_in_worker() block,
execution is resumed in a QEMU thread and the function then returns
ret.
It would be incorrect to return inside the v9fs_co_run_in_worker()
block
because at that point we're still inside the worker thread.
Here is how v9fs_co_run_in_worker() does its magic:
#define v9fs_co_run_in_worker(block) \
{ \
BH *co_bh; \
\
co_bh = qemu_bh_new(co_run_in_worker_bh, qemu_coroutine_self()); \
qemu_bh_schedule(co_bh); \
qemu_coroutine_yield(); /* re-entered in worker thread */ \
qemu_bh_delete(co_bh); \
\
block; \
\
qemu_coroutine_yield(); /* re-entered in QEMU thread */ \
}
void co_run_in_worker_bh(void *opaque)
{
Coroutine *co = opaque;
g_thread_pool_push(pool, co, NULL);
}
void worker_thread_fn(gpointer data, gpointer user_data)
{
Coroutine *co = user_data;
char byte = 0;
ssize_t len;
qemu_coroutine_enter(co, NULL);
g_async_queue_push(v9fs_pool.completed, co);
do {
len = write(v9fs_pool.wfd,&byte, sizeof(byte));
} while (len == -1&& errno == EINTR);
}
void process_req_done(void *arg)
{
Coroutine *co;
char byte;
ssize_t len;
do {
len = read(v9fs_pool.rfd,&byte, sizeof(byte));
} while (len == -1&& errno == EINTR);
while ((co = g_async_queue_try_pop(v9fs_pool.completed)) !=
NULL) {
qemu_coroutine_enter(co, NULL);
}
}
I typed this code out in the email, it has not been compiled or tested.
If you decide to eliminate coroutines entirely in the future and use
worker threads exclusively to process requests, then there are clearly
marked sections in the code: anything inside v9fs_co_run_in_worker()
must be thread-safe already and anything outside it needs to be audited
and made thread-safe. The changes required are smaller than those if
your current patch series was applied. I wanted to mention this point
to show that this doesn't paint virtfs into a corner.
So where does this leave virtfs? No marshalling is necessary and
blocking operations can be performed inline using
v9fs_co_run_in_worker() blocks. The codebase will be a lot smaller.
Does this seem reasonable?