All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU>
Cc: adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, tj@kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] percpu_counter: Put a reasonable upper bound on percpu_counter_batch
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 21:54:39 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110829215439.63353384@kryten> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A91A91A5-9EF0-42FE-B1C3-184D65112EA9@mit.edu>


Hi Ted,

> I understand why we would want to reduce this number.
> Unfortunately, the question is what do we do if all 1024 threads try
> to do buffered writes into the file system at the same instant, when
> we have less than 4 megabytes of space left?
> 
> The problem is that we can then do more writes than we have space, and
> we will only find out about it at write back time, when the process
> may have exited already -- at which point data loss is almost
> inevitable.  (We could keep the data in cache and frantically page
> the system administrator to delete some files to make room for dirty
> data, but that's probably not going to end well….)
> 
> What we can do if we must clamp this threshold is to also increase the
> threshold at which we shift away from delayed allocation.  We'll then
> allocate each block at write time, which does mean more CPU and 
> less efficient allocation of blocks, but if we're down to our last 4
> megabytes, there's probably not much we can do that will be efficient
> as far as block layout anyway….

Thanks for the explanation, I'll go back and take another look.

Anton
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU>
Cc: adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, tj@kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] percpu_counter: Put a reasonable upper bound on percpu_counter_batch
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 21:54:39 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110829215439.63353384@kryten> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <A91A91A5-9EF0-42FE-B1C3-184D65112EA9@mit.edu>


Hi Ted,

> I understand why we would want to reduce this number.
> Unfortunately, the question is what do we do if all 1024 threads try
> to do buffered writes into the file system at the same instant, when
> we have less than 4 megabytes of space left?
> 
> The problem is that we can then do more writes than we have space, and
> we will only find out about it at write back time, when the process
> may have exited already -- at which point data loss is almost
> inevitable.  (We could keep the data in cache and frantically page
> the system administrator to delete some files to make room for dirty
> data, but that's probably not going to end well….)
> 
> What we can do if we must clamp this threshold is to also increase the
> threshold at which we shift away from delayed allocation.  We'll then
> allocate each block at write time, which does mean more CPU and 
> less efficient allocation of blocks, but if we're down to our last 4
> megabytes, there's probably not much we can do that will be efficient
> as far as block layout anyway….

Thanks for the explanation, I'll go back and take another look.

Anton

  reply	other threads:[~2011-08-29 11:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-08-25 21:26 [PATCH 1/2] ext4: EXT4_FREEBLOCKS_WATERMARK is overly pessimistic Anton Blanchard
2011-08-25 21:29 ` [PATCH 2/2] percpu_counter: Put a reasonable upper bound on percpu_counter_batch Anton Blanchard
2011-08-26  8:39   ` Eric Dumazet
2011-08-26  8:39     ` Eric Dumazet
2011-08-29 11:46     ` [PATCH] " Anton Blanchard
2011-09-06  3:48       ` Tejun Heo
2011-09-06 13:30         ` Theodore Tso
2011-09-06 13:30           ` Theodore Tso
2011-09-06 16:44           ` Tejun Heo
2011-09-06 16:44             ` Tejun Heo
2011-09-07 11:08           ` Anton Blanchard
2011-09-07 11:08             ` Anton Blanchard
2011-08-26  9:00   ` [PATCH 2/2] " Tejun Heo
2011-08-26 11:48   ` Theodore Tso
2011-08-29 11:54     ` Anton Blanchard [this message]
2011-08-29 11:54       ` Anton Blanchard
2011-08-29 13:27     ` Ted Ts'o

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=20110829215439.63353384@kryten \
    --to=anton@samba.org \
    --cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
    --cc=eric.dumazet@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=tytso@MIT.EDU \
    /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.