From: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] xfs: re-enable xfsaild idle mode and fix associated races
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2012 09:33:24 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FF1A324.7070603@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120702000712.GN19223@dastard>
On 07/01/2012 08:07 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 06:52:56AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
>> xfsaild idle mode logic currently leads to a couple hangs:
>>
>> 1.) If xfsaild is rescheduled in during an incremental scan
>> (i.e., tout != 0) and the target has been updated since
>> the previous run, we can hit the new target and go into
>> idle mode with a still populated ail.
>> 2.) A wake up is only issued when the target is pushed forward.
>> The wake up can race with xfsaild if it is currently in the
>> process of entering idle mode, causing future wake up
>> events to be lost.
>>
>> These hangs have been reproduced and verified as fixed by
>> running xfstests 273 in a loop on a slightly modified upstream
>> kernel. The kernel is modified to re-enable idle mode as
>> previously implemented (when count == 0) and with a revert of
>> commit 670ce93f, which includes performance improvements that
>> make this harder to reproduce.
>>
>> The solution, the algorithm for which has been outlined by
>> Dave Chinner, is to modify xfsaild to enter idle mode only when
>> the ail is empty and the push target has not been moved forward
>> since the last push.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
>
> Looks OK to me, and hasn't caused any problems here.
>
> Final question - did you confirm with powertop that the xfsaild is
> no longer causing wakeups a minute or two after you stop writing to
> the filesystem? (I haven't yet)
>
I hadn't tested with powertop, but I had some tracepoints hacked in
around the idle/wake cases to verify the thread was actually scheduling
out. FWIW, I just gave powertop a quick test and it appears to work as
expected...
With current upstream on my rhel6.3 VM, I see the following after
running a 'touch /mnt/file;sync' and letting the fs idle for a bit:
0.5% ( 19.9) xfsaild/vdb1 : xfsaild (process_timeout)
and this drops off completely with the patch applied. Thanks for the tip.
Brian
> Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-02 13:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-28 10:52 [PATCH v3] xfs: re-enable xfsaild idle mode and fix associated races Brian Foster
2012-07-02 0:07 ` Dave Chinner
2012-07-02 13:33 ` Brian Foster [this message]
2012-07-02 23:51 ` Dave Chinner
2012-07-03 13:13 ` Brian Foster
2012-07-03 16:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-02 7:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-02 8:29 ` Dave Chinner
2012-07-02 13:51 ` Brian Foster
2012-07-17 7:00 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-24 13:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-24 14:54 ` Ben Myers
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=4FF1A324.7070603@redhat.com \
--to=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/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