From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
david@fromorbit.com, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2 RFC v3] Livelock avoidance for data integrity writeback
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 17:52:58 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100606075258.GK26335@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100606040819.GA16293@localhost>
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 12:08:19PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 11:14:47AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 08:47:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've revived my patches to implement livelock avoidance for data integrity
> > > writes. Due to some concerns whether tagging of pages before writeout cannot
> > > be too costly to use for WB_SYNC_NONE mode (where we stop after nr_to_write
> > > pages) I've changed the patch to use page tagging only in WB_SYNC_ALL mode
> > > where we are sure that we write out all the tagged pages. Later, we can think
> > > about using tagging for livelock avoidance for WB_SYNC_NONE mode as well...
> >
> > Hmm what concerns? Do you have any numbers?
>
> sync() is performed in two stages: the WB_SYNC_NONE run and the
> WB_SYNC_ALL run. The WB_SYNC_NONE stage can still be livelocked.
By concerns, I mean Jan's _performance_ concerns. I would prefer to
minimise them, and then try to get an idea of the performance impact
of doing tagging unconditionally.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
david@fromorbit.com, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2 RFC v3] Livelock avoidance for data integrity writeback
Date: Sun, 6 Jun 2010 17:52:58 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100606075258.GK26335@laptop> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100606040819.GA16293@localhost>
On Sun, Jun 06, 2010 at 12:08:19PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 05, 2010 at 11:14:47AM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 04, 2010 at 08:47:09PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've revived my patches to implement livelock avoidance for data integrity
> > > writes. Due to some concerns whether tagging of pages before writeout cannot
> > > be too costly to use for WB_SYNC_NONE mode (where we stop after nr_to_write
> > > pages) I've changed the patch to use page tagging only in WB_SYNC_ALL mode
> > > where we are sure that we write out all the tagged pages. Later, we can think
> > > about using tagging for livelock avoidance for WB_SYNC_NONE mode as well...
> >
> > Hmm what concerns? Do you have any numbers?
>
> sync() is performed in two stages: the WB_SYNC_NONE run and the
> WB_SYNC_ALL run. The WB_SYNC_NONE stage can still be livelocked.
By concerns, I mean Jan's _performance_ concerns. I would prefer to
minimise them, and then try to get an idea of the performance impact
of doing tagging unconditionally.
--
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:[~2010-06-06 7:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-04 18:47 [PATCH 0/2 RFC v3] Livelock avoidance for data integrity writeback Jan Kara
2010-06-04 18:47 ` Jan Kara
2010-06-04 18:47 ` [PATCH 1/2] radix-tree: Implement function radix_tree_gang_tag_if_tagged Jan Kara
2010-06-04 18:47 ` Jan Kara
2010-06-04 18:47 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: Implement writeback livelock avoidance using page tagging Jan Kara
2010-06-04 18:47 ` Jan Kara
2010-06-05 1:38 ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-05 1:38 ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-07 16:09 ` Jan Kara
2010-06-07 16:09 ` Jan Kara
2010-06-08 5:29 ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-09 13:04 ` Jan Kara
2010-06-09 13:04 ` Jan Kara
2010-06-10 8:12 ` Jan Kara
2010-08-12 18:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-08-12 18:35 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-08-12 22:28 ` Jan Kara
2010-08-12 22:28 ` Jan Kara
2010-08-13 7:50 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-08-13 7:50 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-05 1:14 ` [PATCH 0/2 RFC v3] Livelock avoidance for data integrity writeback Nick Piggin
2010-06-06 4:08 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-06-06 4:08 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-06-06 7:52 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2010-06-06 7:52 ` Nick Piggin
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-06-04 18:40 Jan Kara
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=20100606075258.GK26335@laptop \
--to=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/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.