From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Mel Gorman <mel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
Itaru Kitayama <kitayama@cl.bb4u.ne.jp>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] writeback: sync expired inodes first in background writeback
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 11:15:31 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110424031531.GA11220@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110420164005.e3925965.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> One of the many requirements for writeback is that if userspace is
> continually dirtying pages in a particular file, that shouldn't cause
> the kupdate function to concentrate on that file's newly-dirtied pages,
> neglecting pages from other files which were less-recently dirtied.
> (and dirty nodes, etc).
Sadly I do find the old pages that the flusher never get a chance to
catch and write them out.
In the below case, if the task dirties pages fast enough at the end of
file, writeback_index will never get a chance to wrap back. There may
be various variations of this case.
file head
[ *** ==>***************]==>
old pages writeback_index fresh dirties
Ironically the current kernel relies on pageout() to catch these
old pages, which is not only inefficient, but also not reliable.
If a full LRU walk takes an hour, the old pages may stay dirtied
for an hour.
We may have to do (conditional) tagged ->writepages to safeguard users
from losing data he'd expect to be written hours ago.
Thanks,
Fengguang
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Mel Gorman <mel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>,
Itaru Kitayama <kitayama@cl.bb4u.ne.jp>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] writeback: sync expired inodes first in background writeback
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 11:15:31 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110424031531.GA11220@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110420164005.e3925965.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
> One of the many requirements for writeback is that if userspace is
> continually dirtying pages in a particular file, that shouldn't cause
> the kupdate function to concentrate on that file's newly-dirtied pages,
> neglecting pages from other files which were less-recently dirtied.
> (and dirty nodes, etc).
Sadly I do find the old pages that the flusher never get a chance to
catch and write them out.
In the below case, if the task dirties pages fast enough at the end of
file, writeback_index will never get a chance to wrap back. There may
be various variations of this case.
file head
[ *** ==>***************]==>
old pages writeback_index fresh dirties
Ironically the current kernel relies on pageout() to catch these
old pages, which is not only inefficient, but also not reliable.
If a full LRU walk takes an hour, the old pages may stay dirtied
for an hour.
We may have to do (conditional) tagged ->writepages to safeguard users
from losing data he'd expect to be written hours ago.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-24 3:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-20 8:03 [PATCH 0/6] writeback: moving expire targets for background/kupdate works v2 Wu Fengguang
2011-04-20 8:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-20 8:03 ` [PATCH 1/6] writeback: pass writeback_control down to move_expired_inodes() Wu Fengguang
2011-04-20 8:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-04 11:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-05-04 11:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-05-04 11:13 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-04 11:13 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-20 8:03 ` [PATCH 2/6] writeback: introduce writeback_control.inodes_cleaned Wu Fengguang
2011-04-20 8:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-20 8:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-04 11:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-05-04 11:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-05-04 11:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-04 11:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-04 11:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-05-04 11:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-05-04 11:32 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-04 11:32 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-20 8:03 ` [PATCH 3/6] writeback: try more writeback as long as something was written Wu Fengguang
2011-04-20 8:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-20 8:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-20 8:03 ` [PATCH 4/6] writeback: the kupdate expire timestamp should be a moving target Wu Fengguang
2011-04-20 8:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-20 8:03 ` [PATCH 5/6] writeback: sync expired inodes first in background writeback Wu Fengguang
2011-04-20 8:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-20 8:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-20 23:40 ` Andrew Morton
2011-04-20 23:40 ` Andrew Morton
2011-04-20 23:40 ` Andrew Morton
2011-04-21 1:14 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-21 1:14 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-21 1:21 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-21 1:21 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-24 3:15 ` Wu Fengguang [this message]
2011-04-24 3:15 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-26 12:17 ` Jan Kara
2011-04-26 12:17 ` Jan Kara
2011-04-26 13:51 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-26 13:51 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-26 13:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-26 13:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-26 14:05 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-26 14:05 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-27 11:15 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-27 11:15 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-20 8:03 ` [PATCH 6/6] writeback: refill b_io iff empty Wu Fengguang
2011-04-20 8:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-04-20 8:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-04 7:39 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-05 16:37 ` Jan Kara
2011-05-05 16:37 ` Jan Kara
2011-05-05 16:47 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-05 16:47 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-06 5:29 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-06 5:29 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-06 8:42 ` [RFC][PATCH] writeback: limit number of moved inodes in queue_io() Wu Fengguang
2011-05-06 8:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-06 10:06 ` [RFC][PATCH v2] " Wu Fengguang
2011-05-06 10:06 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-06 23:06 ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-06 23:06 ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-06 14:21 ` [PATCH 6/6] writeback: refill b_io iff empty Jan Kara
2011-05-06 14:21 ` Jan Kara
2011-05-10 4:31 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-05-10 4:53 ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-10 4:53 ` Dave Chinner
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=20110424031531.GA11220@localhost \
--to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=kitayama@cl.bb4u.ne.jp \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
--cc=mel@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
--cc=riel@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.