All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Wanpeng Li <liwp.linux@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Gavin Shan <shangw@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] writeback: avoid race when update bandwidth
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 20:14:34 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120613121434.GA937@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120613035920.GV22848@dastard>

On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 01:59:20PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 07:52:19PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 07:46:01PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> > > From: Wanpeng Li <liwp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > 
> > > "V1 -> V2"
> > > * remove dirty_lock
> > > 
> > > Since bdi->wb.list_lock is used to protect the b_* lists,
> > > so the flushers who call wb_writeback to writeback pages will
> > > stuck when bandwidth update policy holds this lock. In order
> > > to avoid this race we can introduce a new bandwidth_lock who
> > > is responsible for protecting bandwidth update policy.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <liwp.linux@gmail.com>
> > 
> > Applied with a new title "writeback: use a standalone lock for
> > updating write bandwidth". "race" is sensitive because it often
> > refers to some locking error.
> 
> Fengguang - can we get some evidence that this is a contended lock
> before changing the scope of it? All of the previous "breaking up
> global locks" have been done based on lock contention data, so
> moving back to a global lock for this needs to have the same
> analysis provided...

Good point. Attached is the lockstat for the case "10 disks each runs
100 dd dirtier tasks":

        lkp-ne02/JBOD-10HDD-thresh=4G/xfs-100dd-1-3.2.0-rc5

The wb->list_lock contention is much better than I expected, which is
good.  What stand out are
                                                        waittime-total
- &rq->lock             by double_rq_lock()             6738952.13
- clockevents_lock      by clockevents_notify()         2155554.37
- mapping->tree_lock    by test_clear_page_writeback()   931550.13
- sb_lock               by grab_super_passive()          918815.87
- &zone->lru_lock       by pagevec_lru_move_fn()         912681.05

- sysfs_mutex           by sysfs_permission()           24029975.20 # mutex
- ip->i_lock            by xfs_ilock()                  18428284.10 # mrlock

Thanks,
Fengguang

  reply	other threads:[~2012-06-13 12:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-06-12 11:46 [PATCH v2] writeback: avoid race when update bandwidth Wanpeng Li
2012-06-12 11:52 ` Fengguang Wu
2012-06-12 11:58   ` Wanpeng Li
2012-06-13  3:59   ` Dave Chinner
2012-06-13 12:14     ` Fengguang Wu [this message]
2012-06-14  2:05       ` Dave Chinner
2012-06-14 14:00         ` Fengguang Wu
2012-06-15  0:06           ` Dave Chinner
2012-06-15  0:29             ` Fengguang Wu

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=20120613121434.GA937@localhost \
    --to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=liwp.linux@gmail.com \
    --cc=shangw@linux.vnet.ibm.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.