From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753863Ab0CCMDU (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Mar 2010 07:03:20 -0500 Received: from 0122700014.0.fullrate.dk ([95.166.99.235]:37301 "EHLO kernel.dk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753515Ab0CCMDT (ORCPT ); Wed, 3 Mar 2010 07:03:19 -0500 Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:03:17 +0100 From: Jens Axboe To: John Hughes Cc: Andrew Morton , bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, bugme-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 15426] New: Running many copies of bonnie++ on different filesystems seems to deadlock in sync Message-ID: <20100303120317.GP5768@kernel.dk> References: <20100302161627.bf02d0a2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4B8E517E.3010702@Calva.COM> <20100303115015.GN5768@kernel.dk> <4B8E5805.30505@Calva.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="WplhKdTI2c8ulnbP" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4B8E5805.30505@Calva.COM> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --WplhKdTI2c8ulnbP Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline On Wed, Mar 03 2010, John Hughes wrote: > Jens Axboe wrote: >> Is IO still going on, or does it appear to be stuck? From the traces >> below, we have various procs caught in waiting for a request. So if >> things are totally stuck, it could be some race in there. >> > I see I/O happening on three or four of the disks. > > Just a thought. What exactly is sync(2) supposed to do - block until > there are no more dirty pages, or block until all pages that were dirty > when the sync was done are clean? In other words is the problem simply > that pages are being dirtied faster than the sync is writing them out? Our sync is currently broken in that regard, since it'll wait for too long. We have a debated patch going, I have included it below. Any chance you could give it a whirl? The semantics of sync are supposed to be 'wait for dirty IO generated BEFORE this sync call'. -- Jens Axboe --WplhKdTI2c8ulnbP Content-Type: text/x-diff; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="writeback-fix-broken-sync-2.6.32.patch" commit 057226ca7447880e4e766a82cf32197e492ba963 Author: Jens Axboe Date: Fri Feb 12 10:14:34 2010 +0100 writeback: Fix broken sync writeback There's currently a writeback bug in the 2.6.32 and 2.6.33-rc kernels that prevent proper writeback when sync(1) is being run. Instead of flushing everything older than the sync run, it will do chunks of normal MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES writeback and restart over and over. This results in very suboptimal writeback for many files, see the initial report from Jan Engelhardt: http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/1/22/382 This fixes it by using the passed in page writeback count, instead of doing MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES batches, which gets us much better performance (Jan reports it's up from ~400KB/sec to 10MB/sec) and makes sync(1) finish properly even when new pages are being dirted. Thanks to Jan Kara for spotting this problem! Cc: stable@kernel.org Reported-by: Jan Engelhardt Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c index 9d5360c..8a46c67 100644 --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c @@ -773,6 +773,8 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb, } for (;;) { + long to_write = 0; + /* * Stop writeback when nr_pages has been consumed */ @@ -786,13 +788,18 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb, if (args->for_background && !over_bground_thresh()) break; + if (args->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL) + to_write = args->nr_pages; + if (!to_write) + to_write = MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES; + wbc.more_io = 0; wbc.encountered_congestion = 0; - wbc.nr_to_write = MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES; + wbc.nr_to_write = to_write; wbc.pages_skipped = 0; writeback_inodes_wb(wb, &wbc); - args->nr_pages -= MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES - wbc.nr_to_write; - wrote += MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES - wbc.nr_to_write; + args->nr_pages -= to_write - wbc.nr_to_write; + wrote += to_write - wbc.nr_to_write; /* * If we consumed everything, see if we have more @@ -807,7 +814,7 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb, /* * Did we write something? Try for more */ - if (wbc.nr_to_write < MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES) + if (wbc.nr_to_write < to_write) continue; /* * Nothing written. Wait for some inode to --WplhKdTI2c8ulnbP--