From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: jens.axboe@oracle.com, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hch@infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH] writeback: reset inode dirty time when adding it back to empty s_dirty list
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 16:30:33 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1237840233-11045-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com> (raw)
This may be a problem on other filesystems too, but the reproducer I
have involves NFS.
On NFS, the __mark_inode_dirty() call after writing back the inode is
done in the rpc_release handler for COMMIT calls. This call is done
asynchronously after the call completes.
Because there's no real coordination between __mark_inode_dirty() and
__sync_single_inode(), it's often the case that these two calls will
race and __mark_inode_dirty() will get called while I_SYNC is still set.
When this happens, __sync_single_inode() should detect that the inode
was redirtied while we were flushing it and call redirty_tail() to put
it back on the s_dirty list.
When redirty_tail() puts it back on the list, it only resets the
dirtied_when value if it's necessary to maintain the list order. Given
the right situation (the right I/O patterns and a lot of luck), this
could result in dirtied_when never getting updated on an inode that's
constantly being redirtied while pdflush is writing it back.
Since dirtied_when is based on jiffies, it's possible for it to persist
across 2 sign-bit flips of jiffies. When that happens, the time_after()
check in sync_sb_inodes no longer works correctly and writeouts by
pdflush of this inode and any inodes after it on the list stop.
This patch fixes this by resetting the dirtied_when value on an inode
when we're adding it back onto an empty s_dirty list. Since we generally
write inodes from oldest to newest dirtied_when values, this has the
effect of making it so that these inodes don't end up with dirtied_when
values that are frozen.
I've also taken the liberty of fixing up the comments a bit and changed
the !time_after_eq() check in redirty_tail to be time_before(). That
should be functionally equivalent but I think it's more readable.
I wish this were just a theoretical problem, but we've had a customer
hit a variant of it in an older kernel. Newer upstream kernels have a
number of changes that make this problem less likely. As best I can tell
though, there is nothing that really prevents it.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
---
fs/fs-writeback.c | 22 +++++++++++++++++-----
1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
index e3fe991..bd2a7ff 100644
--- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
+++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
@@ -184,19 +184,31 @@ static int write_inode(struct inode *inode, int sync)
* furthest end of its superblock's dirty-inode list.
*
* Before stamping the inode's ->dirtied_when, we check to see whether it is
- * already the most-recently-dirtied inode on the s_dirty list. If that is
- * the case then the inode must have been redirtied while it was being written
- * out and we don't reset its dirtied_when.
+ * "newer" or equal to that of the most-recently-dirtied inode on the s_dirty
+ * list. If that is the case then we don't need to restamp it to maintain the
+ * order of the list.
+ *
+ * If s_dirty is empty however, then we need to go ahead and update
+ * dirtied_when for the inode. Not doing so will mean that inodes that are
+ * constantly being redirtied can end up with "stuck" dirtied_when values if
+ * they happen to consistently be the first one to go back on the list.
+ *
+ * Since we're using jiffies values in that field, letting dirtied_when grow
+ * too old will be problematic if jiffies wraps. It may also be causing
+ * pdflush to flush the inode too often since it'll always look like it was
+ * dirtied a long time ago.
*/
static void redirty_tail(struct inode *inode)
{
struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb;
- if (!list_empty(&sb->s_dirty)) {
+ if (list_empty(&sb->s_dirty)) {
+ inode->dirtied_when = jiffies;
+ } else {
struct inode *tail_inode;
tail_inode = list_entry(sb->s_dirty.next, struct inode, i_list);
- if (!time_after_eq(inode->dirtied_when,
+ if (time_before(inode->dirtied_when,
tail_inode->dirtied_when))
inode->dirtied_when = jiffies;
}
--
1.6.0.6
next reply other threads:[~2009-03-23 20:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-23 20:30 Jeff Layton [this message]
2009-03-24 4:41 ` [PATCH] writeback: reset inode dirty time when adding it back to empty s_dirty list Ian Kent
2009-03-24 5:04 ` Ian Kent
2009-03-24 13:57 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-03-24 14:27 ` Ian Kent
2009-03-24 14:28 ` Jeff Layton
2009-03-24 14:46 ` Jeff Layton
2009-03-24 15:04 ` Ian Kent
2009-03-25 2:25 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-03-25 1:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-03-25 2:15 ` Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <20090324221528.2bb7c50b-RtJpwOs3+0O+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org>
2009-03-25 2:50 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-03-25 11:51 ` Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <20090325075110.028f0d1d-RtJpwOs3+0O+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org>
2009-03-25 12:17 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-03-25 13:13 ` Jeff Layton
2009-03-25 13:18 ` Ian Kent
2009-03-25 13:38 ` Ian Kent
2009-03-25 13:44 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-03-25 14:00 ` Jeff Layton
2009-03-25 14:16 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-03-25 14:28 ` Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <20090325102833.138819d1-RtJpwOs3+0O+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org>
2009-03-25 14:38 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-03-26 17:03 ` Jeff Layton
2009-03-27 2:13 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-03-27 11:16 ` Jeff Layton
[not found] ` <20090327071633.0c1a0e3a-RtJpwOs3+0O+kQycOl6kW4xkIHaj4LzF@public.gmane.org>
2009-03-28 12:44 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-03-25 16:55 ` hch
[not found] ` <20090325165500.GA6047-wEGCiKHe2LqWVfeAwA7xHQ@public.gmane.org>
2009-03-25 20:07 ` Chris Mason
2009-03-25 2:56 ` Ian Kent
2009-03-25 3:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-03-25 5:03 ` Ian Kent
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=1237840233-11045-1-git-send-email-jlayton@redhat.com \
--to=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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).