From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Avoid livelocking of WB_SYNC_ALL writeback
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:22:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101107132204.GC5126@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101106041202.GA15411@localhost>
On Sat 06-11-10 12:12:02, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 05:26:23AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > + /*
> > + * In WB_SYNC_ALL mode, we just want to ignore nr_to_write as
> > + * we need to write everything and livelock avoidance is implemented
> > + * differently.
> > + */
> > + if (wbc.sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE)
> > + write_chunk = MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES;
> > + else
> > + write_chunk = LONG_MAX;
>
> This looks like a safe change for .37. I updated the patch on the
> above comment and made no other changes (it seems OK to also remove
> the below line, however that's not the necessary change as a bug fix,
> so I'd rather leave the extra change to the next merge window).
> write_cache_pages():
>
> --> /*
> --> * We stop writing back only if we are not doing
> --> * integrity sync. In case of integrity sync we have to
> --> * keep going until we have written all the pages
> --> * we tagged for writeback prior to entering this loop.
> --> */
> if (--wbc->nr_to_write <= 0 &&
> ==> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE) {
> done = 1;
> break;
Well, I'd rather leave the test as is. In fact, in my mind-model the
target rather is to completely ignore nr_to_write when we do WB_SYNC_ALL
writeback since obeying it is never what a caller wants to happen...
> + /*
> + * WB_SYNC_ALL mode does livelock avoidance by syncing dirty
> + * inodes/pages in one big loop. Setting wbc.nr_to_write=LONG_MAX
> + * here avoids calling into writeback_inodes_wb() more than once.
Maybe I'd add here:
The intended call sequence for WB_SYNC_ALL writeback is:
> + *
> + * wb_writeback()
> + * writeback_inodes_wb() <== called only once
> + * write_cache_pages() <== called once for each inode
> + * (quickly) tag currently dirty pages
> + * (maybe slowly) sync all tagged pages
> + */
> + if (wbc.sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE)
> + write_chunk = MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES;
> + else
> + write_chunk = LONG_MAX;
> +
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Avoid livelocking of WB_SYNC_ALL writeback
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 14:22:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101107132204.GC5126@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101106041202.GA15411@localhost>
On Sat 06-11-10 12:12:02, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 05:26:23AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > + /*
> > + * In WB_SYNC_ALL mode, we just want to ignore nr_to_write as
> > + * we need to write everything and livelock avoidance is implemented
> > + * differently.
> > + */
> > + if (wbc.sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE)
> > + write_chunk = MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES;
> > + else
> > + write_chunk = LONG_MAX;
>
> This looks like a safe change for .37. I updated the patch on the
> above comment and made no other changes (it seems OK to also remove
> the below line, however that's not the necessary change as a bug fix,
> so I'd rather leave the extra change to the next merge window).
> write_cache_pages():
>
> --> /*
> --> * We stop writing back only if we are not doing
> --> * integrity sync. In case of integrity sync we have to
> --> * keep going until we have written all the pages
> --> * we tagged for writeback prior to entering this loop.
> --> */
> if (--wbc->nr_to_write <= 0 &&
> ==> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE) {
> done = 1;
> break;
Well, I'd rather leave the test as is. In fact, in my mind-model the
target rather is to completely ignore nr_to_write when we do WB_SYNC_ALL
writeback since obeying it is never what a caller wants to happen...
> + /*
> + * WB_SYNC_ALL mode does livelock avoidance by syncing dirty
> + * inodes/pages in one big loop. Setting wbc.nr_to_write=LONG_MAX
> + * here avoids calling into writeback_inodes_wb() more than once.
Maybe I'd add here:
The intended call sequence for WB_SYNC_ALL writeback is:
> + *
> + * wb_writeback()
> + * writeback_inodes_wb() <== called only once
> + * write_cache_pages() <== called once for each inode
> + * (quickly) tag currently dirty pages
> + * (maybe slowly) sync all tagged pages
> + */
> + if (wbc.sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE)
> + write_chunk = MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES;
> + else
> + write_chunk = LONG_MAX;
> +
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-07 13:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-05 21:26 [PATCH] mm: Avoid livelocking of WB_SYNC_ALL writeback Jan Kara
2010-11-05 22:30 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-11-06 2:54 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-06 11:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-11-06 2:55 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-06 2:55 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-06 16:39 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-07 13:34 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-06 1:36 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-11-06 1:36 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-11-07 13:07 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-06 4:12 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-06 4:12 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-07 13:22 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2010-11-07 13:22 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-07 13:37 ` 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=20101107132204.GC5126@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--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.