From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Martin Bligh <mbligh@google.com>,
Michael Rubin <mrubin@google.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] writeback: merge for_kupdate and !for_kupdate cases
Date: Fri, 6 Aug 2010 00:01:24 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100805160124.GA17939@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100712152254.2071ba5f.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 06:22:54AM +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 23:52:39 +0800
> Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > > Also, I'd prefer that the
> > > comments remain somewhat more descriptive of the circumstances that
> > > we are operating under. Comments like "retry later to avoid blocking
> > > writeback of other inodes" is far, far better than "retry later"
> > > because it has "why" component that explains the reason for the
> > > logic. You may remember why, but I sure won't in a few months time....
>
> me2 (of course). This code is waaaay too complex to be scrimping on comments.
>
> > Ah yes the comment is too simple. However the redirty_tail() is not to
> > avoid blocking writeback of other inodes, but to avoid eating 100% CPU
> > on busy retrying a dirty inode/page that cannot perform writeback for
> > a while. (In theory redirty_tail() can still busy retry though, when
> > there is only one single dirty inode.) So how about
> >
> > /*
> > * somehow blocked: avoid busy retrying
> > */
>
> That's much too short. Expand on the "somehow" - provide an example,
> describe the common/expected cause. Fully explain what the "busy"
> retry _is_ and how it can come about.
It was a long story.. This redirty_tail() was introduced when more_io
is introduced. The initial patch for more_io does not have the
redirty_tail(), and when it's merged, several 100% iowait bug reports
arises:
reiserfs:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/10/23/93
jfs:
commit 29a424f28390752a4ca2349633aaacc6be494db5
JFS: clear PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY for no-write pages
ext2:
http://www.spinics.net/linux/lists/linux-ext4/msg04762.html
They are all old bugs hidden in various filesystems that become
"obvious" with the more_io patch. At the time, the ext2 bug is thought
to be "trivial", so you didn't merge that fix. Instead the following
patch with redirty_tail() is merged:
http://www.spinics.net/linux/lists/linux-ext4/msg04507.html
This will in general prevent 100% on ext2 and other possibly unknown FS bugs.
I'll take David's comments and note the above in changelog.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-05 16:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-11 2:06 [PATCH 0/6] writeback cleanups and trivial fixes Wu Fengguang
2010-07-11 2:06 ` [PATCH 1/6] writeback: take account of NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP in balance_dirty_pages() Wu Fengguang
2010-07-12 21:52 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-13 8:58 ` Miklos Szeredi
2010-07-15 14:50 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-07-11 2:06 ` [PATCH 2/6] writeback: reduce calls to global_page_state " Wu Fengguang
2010-07-26 15:19 ` Jan Kara
2010-07-27 3:59 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-07-27 9:12 ` Jan Kara
2010-07-28 2:04 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-03 14:55 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-07-11 2:06 ` [PATCH 3/6] writeback: avoid unnecessary calculation of bdi dirty thresholds Wu Fengguang
2010-07-12 21:56 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-15 14:55 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-07-19 21:35 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-20 3:34 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-07-20 4:14 ` Andrew Morton
2010-08-03 15:03 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-08-03 15:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-04 16:41 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-04 17:10 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-07-11 2:07 ` [PATCH 4/6] writeback: dont redirty tail an inode with dirty pages Wu Fengguang
2010-07-12 2:01 ` Dave Chinner
2010-07-12 15:31 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-07-12 22:13 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-15 15:35 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-07-11 2:07 ` [PATCH 5/6] writeback: fix queue_io() ordering Wu Fengguang
2010-07-12 22:15 ` Andrew Morton
2010-07-11 2:07 ` [PATCH 6/6] writeback: merge for_kupdate and !for_kupdate cases Wu Fengguang
2010-07-12 2:08 ` Dave Chinner
2010-07-12 15:52 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-07-12 22:06 ` Dave Chinner
2010-07-12 22:22 ` Andrew Morton
2010-08-05 16:01 ` Wu Fengguang [this message]
2010-07-11 2:44 ` [PATCH 0/6] writeback cleanups and trivial fixes Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-11 2:50 ` 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=20100805160124.GA17939@localhost \
--to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mbligh@google.com \
--cc=mrubin@google.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.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).