Documentation: add some docs for errseq_t

...and fix up a few comments in the code.

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>

1 files changed, 149 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/Documentation/errseq.rst b/Documentation/errseq.rst
new file mode 100644
index 000000000000..4c29bd5afbc5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/Documentation/errseq.rst
@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
+The errseq_t datatype
+=====================
+An errseq_t is a way of recording errors in one place, and allowing any
+number of "subscribers" to tell whether it has changed since a previous
+point where it was sampled.
+
+The initial use case for this is tracking errors for file
+synchronization syscalls (fsync, fdatasync, msync and sync_file_range),
+but it may be usable in other situations.
+
+It's implemented as an unsigned 32-bit value.  The low order bits are
+designated to hold an error code (between 1 and MAX_ERRNO).  The upper bits
+are used as a counter.  This is done with atomics instead of locking so that
+these functions can be called from any context.
+
+Note that there is a risk of collisions if new errors are being recorded
+frequently, since we have so few bits to use as a counter.
+
+To mitigate this, the bit between the error value and counter is used as
+a flag to tell whether the value has been sampled since a new value was
+recorded.  That allows us to avoid bumping the counter if no one has
+sampled it since the last time an error was recorded.
+
+Thus we end up with a value that looks something like this::
+
+    bit:  31..13        12        11..0
+    +-----------------+----+----------------+
+    |     counter     | SF |      errno     |
+    +-----------------+----+----------------+
+
+The general idea is for "watchers" to sample an errseq_t value and keep
+it as a running cursor.  That value can later be used to tell whether
+any new errors have occurred since that sampling was done, and atomically
+record the state at the time that it was checked.  This allows us to
+record errors in one place, and then have a number of "watchers" that
+can tell whether the value has changed since they last checked it.
+
+A new errseq_t should always be zeroed out.  An errseq_t value of all zeroes
+is the special (but common) case where there has never been an error. An all
+zero value thus serves as the "epoch" if one wishes to know whether there
+has ever been an error set since it was first initialized.
+
+API usage
+=========
+Let me tell you a story about a worker drone.  Now, he's a good worker
+overall, but the company is a little...management heavy.  He has to
+report to 77 supervisors today, and tomorrow the "big boss" is coming in
+from out of town and he's sure to test the poor fellow too.
+
+They're all handing him work to do -- so much he can't keep track of who
+handed him what, but that's not really a big problem.  The supervisors
+just want to know when he's finished all of the work they've handed him so
+far and whether he made any mistakes since they last asked.
+
+He might have made the mistake on work they didn't actually hand him,
+but he can't keep track of things at that level of detail, all he can
+remember is the most recent mistake that he made.
+
+Here's our worker_drone representation::
+
+        struct worker_drone {
+                errseq_t        wd_err; /* for recording errors */
+        };
+
+Every day, the worker_drone starts out with a blank slate::
+
+        struct worker_drone wd;
+
+        wd.wd_err = (errseq_t)0;
+
+The supervisors come in and get an initial read for the day.  They
+don't care about anything that happened before their watch begins::
+
+        struct supervisor {
+                errseq_t        s_wd_err; /* private "cursor" for wd_err */
+                spinlock_t      s_wd_err_lock; /* protects s_wd_err */
+        }
+
+        struct supervisor       su;
+
+        su.s_wd_err = errseq_sample(&wd.wd_err);
+        spin_lock_init(&su.s_wd_err_lock);
+
+Now they start handing him tasks to do.  Every few minutes they ask him to
+finish up all of the work they've handed him so far.  Then they ask him
+whether he made any mistakes on any of it::
+
+        spin_lock(&su.su_wd_err_lock);
+        err = errseq_check_and_advance(&wd.wd_err, &su.s_wd_err);
+        spin_unlock(&su.su_wd_err_lock);
+
+Up to this point, that just keeps returning 0.
+
+Now, the owners of this company are quite miserly and have given him
+substandard equipment with which to do his job. Occasionally it
+glitches and he makes a mistake.  He sighs a heavy sigh, and marks it
+down::
+
+        errseq_set(&wd.wd_err, -EIO);
+
+...and then gets back to work.  The supervisors eventually poll again
+and they each get the error when they next check.  Subsequent calls will
+return 0, until another error is recorded, at which point it's reported
+to each of them once.
+
+Note that the supervisors can't tell how many mistakes he made, only
+whether one was made since they last checked, and the latest value
+recorded.
+
+Occasionally the big boss comes in for a spot check and asks the worker
+to do a one-off job for him. He's not really watching the worker
+full-time like the supervisors, but he does need to know whether a
+mistake occurred while his job was processing.
+
+He can just sample the current errseq_t in the worker, and then use that
+to tell whether an error has occurred later::
+
+        errseq_t since = errseq_sample(&wd.wd_err);
+        /* submit some work and wait for it to complete */
+        err = errseq_check(&wd.wd_err, since);
+
+Since he's just going to discard "since" after that point, he doesn't
+need to advance it here. He also doesn't need any locking since it's
+not usable by anyone else.
+
+Serializing errseq_t cursor updates
+===================================
+Note that the errseq_t API does not protect the errseq_t cursor during a
+check_and_advance_operation. Only the canonical error code is handled
+atomically.  In a situation where more than one task might be using the
+same errseq_t cursor at the same time, it's important to serialize
+updates to that cursor.
+
+If that's not done, then it's possible for the cursor to go backward
+in which case the same error could be reported more than once.
+
+Because of this, it's often advantageous to first do an errseq_check to
+see if anything has changed, and only later do an
+errseq_check_and_advance after taking the lock. e.g.::
+
+        if (errseq_check(&wd.wd_err, READ_ONCE(su.s_wd_err)) {
+                /* su.s_wd_err is protected by s_wd_err_lock */
+                spin_lock(&su.s_wd_err_lock);
+                err = errseq_check_and_advance(&wd.wd_err, &su.s_wd_err);
+                spin_unlock(&su.s_wd_err_lock);
+        }
+
+That avoids the spinlock in the common case where nothing has changed
+since the last time it was checked.