From: Valerie Aurora <vaurora@redhat.com>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, emcnabb@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix softlockups in ext2/3 when trying to allocate blocks
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 2009 16:26:13 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090708202612.GC16893@shell> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090706194739.GB19798@dhcp231-156.rdu.redhat.com>
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 03:47:39PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> This isn't a huge deal, but using a big beefy box with more CPUs than what is
> sane, you can get a nice flood of softlockup messages when running heavy
> multi-threaded io tests on ext2/3. The processors compete for blocks from the
> allocator, so they will loop quite a bit trying to get their allocation. This
> patch simply makes sure that we reschedule if need be. This made the softlockup
> messages disappear whereas before they happened almost immediately. Thanks,
>
> Tested-by: Evan McNabb <emcnabb@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
> ---
> fs/ext2/balloc.c | 1 +
> fs/ext3/balloc.c | 2 ++
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext2/balloc.c b/fs/ext2/balloc.c
> index 7f8d2e5..17dd55f 100644
> --- a/fs/ext2/balloc.c
> +++ b/fs/ext2/balloc.c
> @@ -1176,6 +1176,7 @@ ext2_try_to_allocate_with_rsv(struct super_block *sb, unsigned int group,
> break; /* succeed */
> }
> num = *count;
> + cond_resched();
> }
> return ret;
> }
> diff --git a/fs/ext3/balloc.c b/fs/ext3/balloc.c
> index 27967f9..cffc8cd 100644
> --- a/fs/ext3/balloc.c
> +++ b/fs/ext3/balloc.c
> @@ -735,6 +735,7 @@ bitmap_search_next_usable_block(ext3_grpblk_t start, struct buffer_head *bh,
> struct journal_head *jh = bh2jh(bh);
>
> while (start < maxblocks) {
> + cond_resched();
> next = ext3_find_next_zero_bit(bh->b_data, maxblocks, start);
> if (next >= maxblocks)
> return -1;
I'm curious: Why schedule at the beginning of the while() loop rather
than at the end?
> @@ -1391,6 +1392,7 @@ ext3_try_to_allocate_with_rsv(struct super_block *sb, handle_t *handle,
> break; /* succeed */
> }
> num = *count;
> + cond_resched();
> }
> out:
> if (ret >= 0) {
> --
> 1.6.2.2
I like this patch in general, but I worry about introducing new
performance problems in other cases. Have you guys tested on single
cpu systems? Maybe with a file system close to ENOSPC or badly
fragmented?
-VAL
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-08 20:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-06 19:47 [PATCH] fix softlockups in ext2/3 when trying to allocate blocks Josef Bacik
2009-07-08 20:26 ` Valerie Aurora [this message]
2009-07-21 6:37 ` Andrew Morton
2009-07-21 15:15 ` Josef Bacik
2009-07-21 15:50 ` Jan Kara
2009-07-21 16:06 ` Josef Bacik
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=20090708202612.GC16893@shell \
--to=vaurora@redhat.com \
--cc=emcnabb@redhat.com \
--cc=josef@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--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).