All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	npiggin@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Implement writeback livelock avoidance using page tagging
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:42:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100621124254.GC3828@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100618152128.bb0db798.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

On Fri 18-06-10 15:21:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:33:51 +0200
> Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> 
> > We try to avoid livelocks of writeback when some steadily creates
> > dirty pages in a mapping we are writing out. For memory-cleaning
> > writeback, using nr_to_write works reasonably well but we cannot
> > really use it for data integrity writeback. This patch tries to
> > solve the problem.
> > 
> > The idea is simple: Tag all pages that should be written back
> > with a special tag (TOWRITE) in the radix tree. This can be done
> > rather quickly and thus livelocks should not happen in practice.
> > Then we start doing the hard work of locking pages and sending
> > them to disk only for those pages that have TOWRITE tag set.
> > 
> > Note: Adding new radix tree tag grows radix tree node from 288 to
> > 296 bytes for 32-bit archs and from 552 to 560 bytes for 64-bit archs.
> > However, the number of slab/slub items per page remains the same
> > (13 and 7 respectively).
> > 
> >
> > ...
> >
> > +void tag_pages_for_writeback(struct address_space *mapping,
> > +			     pgoff_t start, pgoff_t end)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long tagged;
> > +
> > +	do {
> > +		spin_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> > +		tagged = radix_tree_range_tag_if_tagged(&mapping->page_tree,
> > +				&start, end, WRITEBACK_TAG_BATCH,
> > +				PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY, PAGECACHE_TAG_TOWRITE);
> > +		spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> > +		cond_resched();
> > +	} while (tagged >= WRITEBACK_TAG_BATCH);
> > +}
> 
> grumble.  (tagged > WRITEBACK_TAG_BATCH) would be a bug, wouldn't it? 
> So the ">=" is hiding a bug.
  Good point. I'll add WARN_ON_ONCE when tagged is > WRITEBACK_TAG_BATCH.
That will make the bug vissible while still continuing the writeback
(because it's a situation in which we can still happily continue). Should
I send you a new version of the patch or will you just fold that one line
in?

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	npiggin@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: Implement writeback livelock avoidance using page tagging
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2010 14:42:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100621124254.GC3828@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100618152128.bb0db798.akpm@linux-foundation.org>

On Fri 18-06-10 15:21:28, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2010 18:33:51 +0200
> Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> 
> > We try to avoid livelocks of writeback when some steadily creates
> > dirty pages in a mapping we are writing out. For memory-cleaning
> > writeback, using nr_to_write works reasonably well but we cannot
> > really use it for data integrity writeback. This patch tries to
> > solve the problem.
> > 
> > The idea is simple: Tag all pages that should be written back
> > with a special tag (TOWRITE) in the radix tree. This can be done
> > rather quickly and thus livelocks should not happen in practice.
> > Then we start doing the hard work of locking pages and sending
> > them to disk only for those pages that have TOWRITE tag set.
> > 
> > Note: Adding new radix tree tag grows radix tree node from 288 to
> > 296 bytes for 32-bit archs and from 552 to 560 bytes for 64-bit archs.
> > However, the number of slab/slub items per page remains the same
> > (13 and 7 respectively).
> > 
> >
> > ...
> >
> > +void tag_pages_for_writeback(struct address_space *mapping,
> > +			     pgoff_t start, pgoff_t end)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned long tagged;
> > +
> > +	do {
> > +		spin_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> > +		tagged = radix_tree_range_tag_if_tagged(&mapping->page_tree,
> > +				&start, end, WRITEBACK_TAG_BATCH,
> > +				PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY, PAGECACHE_TAG_TOWRITE);
> > +		spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> > +		cond_resched();
> > +	} while (tagged >= WRITEBACK_TAG_BATCH);
> > +}
> 
> grumble.  (tagged > WRITEBACK_TAG_BATCH) would be a bug, wouldn't it? 
> So the ">=" is hiding a bug.
  Good point. I'll add WARN_ON_ONCE when tagged is > WRITEBACK_TAG_BATCH.
That will make the bug vissible while still continuing the writeback
(because it's a situation in which we can still happily continue). Should
I send you a new version of the patch or will you just fold that one line
in?

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

--
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2010-06-21 12:43 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-06-16 16:33 (unknown), Jan Kara
2010-06-16 16:33 ` Jan Kara
2010-06-16 16:33 ` [PATCH 1/2] radix-tree: Implement function radix_tree_range_tag_if_tagged Jan Kara
2010-06-16 16:33   ` Jan Kara
2010-06-18 22:18   ` Andrew Morton
2010-06-21 12:09     ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-21 12:09       ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-21 22:43       ` Jan Kara
2010-06-21 22:43         ` Jan Kara
2010-06-23 13:42       ` Jan Kara
2010-06-23 13:42         ` Jan Kara
2010-06-16 16:33 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: Implement writeback livelock avoidance using page tagging Jan Kara
2010-06-16 16:33   ` Jan Kara
2010-06-18 22:21   ` Andrew Morton
2010-06-21 12:42     ` Jan Kara [this message]
2010-06-21 12:42       ` Jan Kara
2010-06-16 22:15 ` your mail Dave Chinner
2010-06-17  7:43   ` [PATCH 0/2 v4] Writeback livelock avoidance for data integrity writes Jan Kara
2010-06-17  7:43     ` Jan Kara
2010-06-18  6:11     ` Dave Chinner
2010-06-18  7:01       ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-18  7:01         ` Nick Piggin
2010-06-17  9:11 ` Jan Kara
2010-06-17  9:11   ` Jan Kara
2010-06-22  2:59 ` your mail Wu Fengguang
2010-06-22  2:59   ` Wu Fengguang
2010-06-22 13:54   ` Jan Kara
2010-06-22 13:54     ` Jan Kara
2010-06-22 14:12     ` Wu Fengguang
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-06-24 13:57 [PATCH 0/2 v5] Livelock avoidance for data integrity writes Jan Kara
2010-06-24 13:57 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: Implement writeback livelock avoidance using page tagging Jan Kara
2010-06-24 13:57 ` Jan Kara
2010-06-04 18:47 [PATCH 0/2 RFC v3] Livelock avoidance for data integrity writeback 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
2010-06-04 18:40 [PATCH 0/2 RFC v3] Livelock avoidance for data integrity writeback Jan Kara
2010-06-04 18:40 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: Implement writeback livelock avoidance using page tagging Jan Kara
2010-06-09 23:41   ` Andrew Morton
2010-06-10 12:31     ` Jan Kara
2010-06-09 23:45   ` Andrew Morton
2010-06-10 12:42     ` 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=20100621124254.GC3828@quack.suse.cz \
    --to=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=npiggin@suse.de \
    /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.