Re: [PATCH, RFC] Don't do page stablization if !CONFIG_BLKDEV_INTEGRITY

Boaz Harrosh
2012-03-08T20:20:26Z

On 03/08/2012 10:09 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
>
> But, why are we writeback for a second or more? Aren't there other
> parts of this we would want to fix as well?
>
> I'm not against only turning on stable pages when they are needed, but
> the code that isn't the default tends to be somewhat less used. So it
> does increase testing burden when we do want stable pages, and it tends
> to make for awkward bugs that are hard to reproduce because someone
> neglects to mention it.
>
> IMHO it's much more important to nail down the 2 second writeback
> latency. That's not good.
>

I think I understand this one. It's do to the sync nature introduced
by page_waiting in mkwrite.

The system is loaded everything is somewhat 2 second or more in a lag.
The 2 sec (or more) comes from the max-dirty-limit/disk-speed so any
IO you'll submit will probably be on stable disk 2 sec later. (In theory,
any power fail will loose all dirty pages which is in our case
max-dirty-limit)

Now usually that's fine because everything is queued and waits a bit
evenly distributed and you wait, theoretically, only the rate of your
IO. But here, all of a sudden, you are not allowed to be queued and you
are waiting for the head of queue to be actually done, and the app is
just frozen.

Actually now when I think of it the pages were already submitted for
them to be waited on. So the 2-sec is the depth of the block+scsi+target
queues. I guess they can be pretty deep.

I have a theory of how we can fix that 2-sec wait, by avoiding writeback of
the last n pages of an inode who's mtime is less then 2-sec. This would
solve any sequential writer wait penalty, which is Ted's case

Thanks
Boaz