From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@medozas.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] writeback: stop background/kupdate works from livelocking other works
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2010 13:13:10 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101109131310.f442d210.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101108231726.993880740@intel.com>
On Tue, 09 Nov 2010 07:09:19 +0800
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
>
I find the description to be somewhat incomplete...
> From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
>
> Background writeback are easily livelockable (from a definition of their
> target).
*why* is background writeback easily livelockable? Under which
circumstances does this happen and how does it come about?
> This is inconvenient because it can make sync(1) stall forever waiting
> on its queued work to be finished.
Again, why? Because there are works queued from the flusher thread,
but that thread is stuck in a livelocked state in <unspecified code
location> so it is unable to service the other works? But the pocess
which called sync() will as a last resort itself perform all the
required IO, will it not? If so, how can it livelock?
> Generally, when a flusher thread has
> some work queued, someone submitted the work to achieve a goal more specific
> than what background writeback does. So it makes sense to give it a priority
> over a generic page cleaning.
>
> Thus we interrupt background writeback if there is some other work to do. We
> return to the background writeback after completing all the queued work.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> ---
> fs/fs-writeback.c | 9 +++++++++
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
>
> --- linux-next.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c 2010-11-07 21:56:42.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-next/fs/fs-writeback.c 2010-11-07 22:00:51.000000000 +0800
> @@ -651,6 +651,15 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ
> break;
>
> /*
> + * Background writeout and kupdate-style writeback are
> + * easily livelockable. Stop them if there is other work
> + * to do so that e.g. sync can proceed.
> + */
> + if ((work->for_background || work->for_kupdate) &&
> + !list_empty(&wb->bdi->work_list))
> + break;
> +
> + /*
> * For background writeout, stop when we are below the
> * background dirty threshold
> */
So... what prevents higher priority works (eg, sync(1)) from
livelocking or seriously retarding background or kudate writeout?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-09 21:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-08 23:09 [PATCH 0/5] writeback livelock fixes Wu Fengguang
2010-11-08 23:09 ` [PATCH 1/5] writeback: integrated background writeback work Wu Fengguang
2010-11-08 23:09 ` [PATCH 2/5] writeback: trace wakeup event for background writeback Wu Fengguang
2010-11-08 23:09 ` [PATCH 3/5] writeback: stop background/kupdate works from livelocking other works Wu Fengguang
2010-11-09 21:13 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2010-11-09 22:28 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-09 23:00 ` Andrew Morton
2010-11-09 23:56 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-10 23:37 ` Andrew Morton
2010-11-11 0:40 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-11 13:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-11-11 16:44 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-08 23:09 ` [PATCH 4/5] writeback: avoid livelocking WB_SYNC_ALL writeback Wu Fengguang
2010-11-09 22:43 ` Andrew Morton
2010-11-09 23:18 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-10 2:26 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-08 23:09 ` [PATCH 5/5] writeback: check skipped pages on WB_SYNC_ALL Wu Fengguang
2010-11-09 22:47 ` Andrew Morton
2010-11-09 23:16 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-08 23:23 ` [PATCH 0/5] writeback livelock fixes Wu Fengguang
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-11-10 2:35 [PATCH 0/5] writeback livelock fixes v2 Wu Fengguang
2010-11-10 2:35 ` [PATCH 3/5] writeback: stop background/kupdate works from livelocking other works Wu Fengguang
2010-11-10 3:55 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-10 16:26 ` 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=20101109131310.f442d210.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jengelh@medozas.de \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@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).