linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	"linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Latency writing to an mlocked ext4 mapping
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:59:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALCETrUcOKQAJTTmCSD3Q3wYS-zLqv6tBa4AdkK50bNobRhDUQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CALCETrX=-CnNQ9+4tRbqMG4mfuy2FBPXXoJeBVDVPnEiRJYRFQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 7:17 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 6:02 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca> wrote:
>>> What kernel are you using?  A change to keep pages consistent during writeout was landed not too long ago (maybe Linux 3.0) in order to allow checksumming of the data.
>>
>> 3.0.6, with no relevant patches.  (I have a one-liner added to the tcp
>> code that I'll submit sometime soon.)  Would this explain the latency
>> in file_update_time or is that a separate issue?  file_update_time
>> seems like a good thing to make fully asynchronous (especially if the
>> file in question is a fifo, but I've already moved my fifos to tmpfs).
>
> On 2.6.39.4, I got one instance of:
>
> call_rwsem_down_read_failed ext4_map_blocks ext4_da_get_block_prep
> __block_write_begin ext4_da_write_begin ext4_page_mkwrite do_wp_page
> handle_pte_fault handle_mm_fault do_page_fault page_fault
>
> but I'm not seeing the large numbers of the ext4_page_mkwrite trace
> that I get on 3.0.6.  file_update_time is now by far the dominant
> cause of latency.

The culprit seems to be do_wp_page -> file_update_time ->
mark_inode_dirty_sync.  This surprises me for two reasons:

 - Why the _sync?  Are we worried that data will be written out before
the metadata?  If so, surely there's a better way than adding latency
here.

 - Why are we calling file_update_time at all?  Presumably we also
update the time when the page is written back (if not, that sounds
like a bug, since the contents may be changed after something saw the
mtime update), and, if so, why bother updating it on the first write?
Anything that relies on this behavior is, I think, unreliable, because
the page could be made writable arbitrarily early by another program
that changes nothing.

--Andy
--
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

  reply	other threads:[~2011-10-20  5:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-10-20  0:39 Latency writing to an mlocked ext4 mapping Andy Lutomirski
2011-10-20  1:02 ` Andreas Dilger
2011-10-20  1:15   ` Andy Lutomirski
2011-10-20  2:17     ` Andy Lutomirski
2011-10-20  5:59       ` Andy Lutomirski [this message]
2011-10-25 12:26         ` Jan Kara
2011-10-28 23:37           ` Andy Lutomirski
2011-10-28 23:39             ` [PATCH] mm: Improve cmtime update on shared writable mmaps Andy Lutomirski
2011-11-01 22:53               ` Jan Kara
2011-11-01 23:02                 ` Andy Lutomirski
2011-11-02  7:38                   ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-11-02 15:02                   ` Jan Kara
2011-11-02 15:19                     ` Ted Ts'o
2011-10-31 23:10             ` Latency writing to an mlocked ext4 mapping Jan Kara
2011-10-31 23:14               ` Andy Lutomirski
2011-11-01 23:03                 ` Jan Kara
2011-11-01 23:10                   ` Andy Lutomirski
2011-11-02  1:51                     ` Andy Lutomirski
2011-11-02 20:17                       ` Jan Kara

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=CALCETrUcOKQAJTTmCSD3Q3wYS-zLqv6tBa4AdkK50bNobRhDUQ@mail.gmail.com \
    --to=luto@amacapital.net \
    --cc=adilger@dilger.ca \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).