From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com>
Cc: Chad Talbott <ctalbott@google.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Michael Rubin <mrubin@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@google.com>,
"sandeen@redhat.com" <sandeen@redhat.com>,
Michael Davidson <md@google.com>
Subject: Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:06:30 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090730010630.GA7326@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <33307c790907290711s320607b0i79c939104d4c2d61@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:11:10PM +0800, Martin Bligh wrote:
> > --- mm.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c
> > +++ mm/fs/fs-writeback.c
> > @@ -325,7 +325,8 @@ __sync_single_inode(struct inode *inode,
> > * soon as the queue becomes uncongested.
> > */
> > inode->i_state |= I_DIRTY_PAGES;
> > - if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) {
> > + if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0 ||
> > + wbc->encountered_congestion) {
> > /*
> > * slice used up: queue for next turn
> > */
> >
>
> That's not sufficient - it only the problem in the wb_kupdate path. If you want
> to be more conservative, how about we do this?
I agree on the unification of kupdate and sync paths. In fact I had a
patch for doing this. And I'd recommend to do it in two patches:
one to fix the congestion case, another to do the code unification.
The sync path don't care whether requeue_io() or redirty_tail() is
used, because they disregard the time stamps totally - only order of
inodes matters (ie. starvation), which is same for requeue_io()/redirty_tail().
Thanks,
Fengguang
> --- linux-2.6.30/fs/fs-writeback.c.old 2009-07-29 00:08:29.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.30/fs/fs-writeback.c 2009-07-29 07:08:48.000000000 -0700
> @@ -323,43 +323,14 @@ __sync_single_inode(struct inode *inode,
> * We didn't write back all the pages. nfs_writepages(
> )
> * sometimes bales out without doing anything. Redirty
> * the inode; Move it from s_io onto s_more_io/s_dirty.
> + * It may well have just encountered congestion
> */
> - /*
> - * akpm: if the caller was the kupdate function we put
> - * this inode at the head of s_dirty so it gets first
> - * consideration. Otherwise, move it to the tail, for
> - * the reasons described there. I'm not really sure
> - * how much sense this makes. Presumably I had a good
> - * reasons for doing it this way, and I'd rather not
> - * muck with it at present.
> - */
> - if (wbc->for_kupdate) {
> - /*
> - * For the kupdate function we move the inode
> - * to s_more_io so it will get more writeout as
> - * soon as the queue becomes uncongested.
> - */
> - inode->i_state |= I_DIRTY_PAGES;
> - if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) {
> - /*
> - * slice used up: queue for next turn
> - */
> - requeue_io(inode);
> - } else {
> - /*
> - * somehow blocked: retry later
> - */
> - redirty_tail(inode);
> - }
> - } else {
> - /*
> - * Otherwise fully redirty the inode so that
> - * other inodes on this superblock will get som
> e
> - * writeout. Otherwise heavy writing to one
> - * file would indefinitely suspend writeout of
> - * all the other files.
> - */
> - inode->i_state |= I_DIRTY_PAGES;
> + inode->i_state |= I_DIRTY_PAGES;
> + if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0 || /* sliced used up */
> + wbc->encountered_congestion)
> + requeue_io(inode);
> + else {
> + /* somehow blocked: retry later */
> redirty_tail(inode);
> }
> } else if (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY) {
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com>
Cc: Chad Talbott <ctalbott@google.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Michael Rubin <mrubin@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@google.com>,
"sandeen@redhat.com" <sandeen@redhat.com>,
Michael Davidson <md@google.com>
Subject: Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2009 09:06:30 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090730010630.GA7326@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <33307c790907290711s320607b0i79c939104d4c2d61@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 10:11:10PM +0800, Martin Bligh wrote:
> > --- mm.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c
> > +++ mm/fs/fs-writeback.c
> > @@ -325,7 +325,8 @@ __sync_single_inode(struct inode *inode,
> > A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A * soon as the queue becomes uncongested.
> > A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A */
> > A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A inode->i_state |= I_DIRTY_PAGES;
> > - A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) {
> > + A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0 ||
> > + A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A wbc->encountered_congestion) {
> > A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A /*
> > A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A * slice used up: queue for next turn
> > A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A */
> >
>
> That's not sufficient - it only the problem in the wb_kupdate path. If you want
> to be more conservative, how about we do this?
I agree on the unification of kupdate and sync paths. In fact I had a
patch for doing this. And I'd recommend to do it in two patches:
one to fix the congestion case, another to do the code unification.
The sync path don't care whether requeue_io() or redirty_tail() is
used, because they disregard the time stamps totally - only order of
inodes matters (ie. starvation), which is same for requeue_io()/redirty_tail().
Thanks,
Fengguang
> --- linux-2.6.30/fs/fs-writeback.c.old 2009-07-29 00:08:29.000000000 -0700
> +++ linux-2.6.30/fs/fs-writeback.c 2009-07-29 07:08:48.000000000 -0700
> @@ -323,43 +323,14 @@ __sync_single_inode(struct inode *inode,
> * We didn't write back all the pages. nfs_writepages(
> )
> * sometimes bales out without doing anything. Redirty
> * the inode; Move it from s_io onto s_more_io/s_dirty.
> + * It may well have just encountered congestion
> */
> - /*
> - * akpm: if the caller was the kupdate function we put
> - * this inode at the head of s_dirty so it gets first
> - * consideration. Otherwise, move it to the tail, for
> - * the reasons described there. I'm not really sure
> - * how much sense this makes. Presumably I had a good
> - * reasons for doing it this way, and I'd rather not
> - * muck with it at present.
> - */
> - if (wbc->for_kupdate) {
> - /*
> - * For the kupdate function we move the inode
> - * to s_more_io so it will get more writeout as
> - * soon as the queue becomes uncongested.
> - */
> - inode->i_state |= I_DIRTY_PAGES;
> - if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) {
> - /*
> - * slice used up: queue for next turn
> - */
> - requeue_io(inode);
> - } else {
> - /*
> - * somehow blocked: retry later
> - */
> - redirty_tail(inode);
> - }
> - } else {
> - /*
> - * Otherwise fully redirty the inode so that
> - * other inodes on this superblock will get som
> e
> - * writeout. Otherwise heavy writing to one
> - * file would indefinitely suspend writeout of
> - * all the other files.
> - */
> - inode->i_state |= I_DIRTY_PAGES;
> + inode->i_state |= I_DIRTY_PAGES;
> + if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0 || /* sliced used up */
> + wbc->encountered_congestion)
> + requeue_io(inode);
> + else {
> + /* somehow blocked: retry later */
> redirty_tail(inode);
> }
> } else if (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY) {
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-30 1:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 64+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-28 19:11 Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout Chad Talbott
2009-07-28 19:11 ` Chad Talbott
2009-07-28 21:49 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-28 21:49 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-29 7:15 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-29 7:15 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-29 11:43 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-29 11:43 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-29 14:11 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-29 14:11 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 1:06 ` Wu Fengguang [this message]
2009-07-30 1:06 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 1:12 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 1:12 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 1:57 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 1:57 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 2:59 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 2:59 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 4:08 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 4:08 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 19:55 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 19:55 ` Martin Bligh
2009-08-01 2:02 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01 2:02 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 0:19 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 0:19 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 1:28 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 1:28 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 2:09 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 2:09 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 2:57 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 2:57 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 3:19 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 3:19 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 20:33 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 20:33 ` Martin Bligh
2009-08-01 2:58 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01 2:58 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01 4:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01 4:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 1:49 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 1:49 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-07-30 21:39 ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-30 21:39 ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-30 22:01 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 22:01 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 22:17 ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-30 22:17 ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-30 22:34 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 22:34 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 22:43 ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-30 22:43 ` Jens Axboe
2009-07-30 22:48 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-30 22:48 ` Martin Bligh
2009-07-31 7:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-07-31 7:50 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-08-01 4:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01 4:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01 4:53 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01 4:53 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01 5:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01 5:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01 4:02 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-08-01 4:02 ` Wu Fengguang
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=20090730010630.GA7326@localhost \
--to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@google.com \
--cc=ctalbott@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mbligh@google.com \
--cc=md@google.com \
--cc=mrubin@google.com \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.