linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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>

  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).