From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix mapping->writeback_index to point to the last written page
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2011 15:08:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110303140802.GA27751@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110303133119.GA16562@localhost>
On Thu 03-03-11 21:31:19, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:26:19AM +0800, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
> > flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899962 + 8
> > flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899970 + 8
> > flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899978 + 8
> > flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899986 + 8
> > flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899994 + 8
> ==> > kworker/0:1-11 4606: block_rq_issue: 8,0 W 0 () 94899962 + 40
> > >> flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898554 + 8
> ==> > >> flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_rq_issue: 8,0 W 0 () 94898554 + 8
>
> I'd expect the wrapped around 94898554+8 to be merged with 94899962+8.
How could they be merged? They are not continguous...
> Why kworker/0:1-11 is submitting the request early? And the second
> request is submitted by flush-8:0-2743.
I'm not sure about that either - but I think that kworker is submitting
the work when unplug happens while flush ends up doing it when the queue is
alredy unplugged.
> > The 1st writeback ended at block 94898562. (94898554+8)
> > The 2nd writeback started there.
> > However, since the last page at the 1st writeback was just redirtied,
> > the 2nd writeback looped back to block 94898554 after sequentially
> > submitting blocks from 94898562 to 94900001.
> >
> > 1 extra seek which could be avoided.
> > I haven't seen fatal problem with the latest kernel, though.
> >
> > With older kernels (before 2.6.29, without commit 31a12666),
> > kupdate leaves the dirty pages like spots until the application wraps
> > around the ring. (It could take hours to days.)
> > That led me to this code.
> >
> > > But as I'm thinking about it, it wouldn't harm our original aim to do
> > > what you propose and it can help this relatively common case. So I think
> > > it's a good idea. Fengguang, what do you think?
>
> I see no problem too.
>
> Tested-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
OK, I'll update the changelog to reflect our discussion and post the
patch to Andrew for inclusion.
Honza
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-03 14:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-02-25 7:55 [PATCH] Fix mapping->writeback_index to point to the last written page Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-03-02 22:18 ` Jan Kara
2011-03-03 2:26 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-03-03 13:31 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-03-03 14:08 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2011-03-04 1:45 ` Jun'ichi Nomura
2011-03-04 2:20 ` Wu Fengguang
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=20110303140802.GA27751@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.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).