public inbox for linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Ted Tso <tytso@mit.edu>,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] jbd2: Fix dbench4 performance regression for 'nobarrier' mounts
Date: Tue, 2 May 2017 11:36:54 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170502093654.GC13916@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170428150324.GA20122@infradead.org>

On Fri 28-04-17 08:03:24, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:59:34AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Fix the problem by making sure journal superblock writes are always
> > treated as synchronous since they generally block progress of the
> > journalling machinery and thus the whole filesystem.
> 
> The callchains leading down to jbd2_write_superblock looks a little
> suspicious to me.  It seems like jbd2_journal_commit_transaction
> will actually call without FUA in the JBD2_FLUSHED case. Is that
> really intentional, and if yes should it be documented?

I guess you mean this:

                /*
                 * We hold j_checkpoint_mutex so tail cannot change under us.
                 * We don't need any special data guarantees for writing sb
                 * since journal is empty and it is ok for write to be
                 * flushed only with transaction commit.
                 */
                jbd2_journal_update_sb_log_tail(journal,
                                                journal->j_tail_sequence,
                                                journal->j_tail,
                                                REQ_SYNC);

And yes, omitting REQ_FUA is intentional and the comment mentions it as "We
don't need any special data guarantees...". Maybe I could add there an
explicit mentioning of REQ_FUA and REQ_PREFLUSH so that it is clearer what
we are talking about.

> Except for that it would seem more useful to move to a "bool preflush"
> argument passed down.

Well, we can call jbd2_write_superblock() with REQ_FUA, REQ_PREFLUSH |
REQ_FUA, REQ_SYNC. So one bool argument won't be enough. However I do agree
that it would be cleaner to pass REQ_SYNC directly from all the places
which set some flags which are eventually passed down to
jbd2_write_superblock(). I'll create a cleanup patch for that.

> But I guess we'll need a quick fix first, for that:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

Thanks!

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

  reply	other threads:[~2017-05-02  9:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-04-28  9:59 [PATCH] jbd2: Fix dbench4 performance regression for 'nobarrier' mounts Jan Kara
2017-04-28 15:03 ` Christoph Hellwig
2017-05-02  9:36   ` Jan Kara [this message]
2017-04-30  1:14 ` Theodore 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=20170502093654.GC13916@quack2.suse.cz \
    --to=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=stable@vger.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox