From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755289Ab1EEOKr (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 May 2011 10:10:47 -0400 Received: from mga02.intel.com ([134.134.136.20]:5393 "EHLO mga02.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755236Ab1EEOKo (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 May 2011 10:10:44 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.64,319,1301900400"; d="scan'208";a="638485495" Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 22:10:39 +0800 From: Wu Fengguang To: Jan Kara Cc: Andrew Morton , Dave Chinner , Christoph Hellwig , LKML , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] writeback: avoid extra sync work at enqueue time Message-ID: <20110505141039.GC9409@localhost> References: <20110502031750.135798606@intel.com> <20110502033035.789279347@intel.com> <20110504212427.GI6968@quack.suse.cz> <20110505122732.GC1294@localhost> <20110505140134.GF5323@quack.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20110505140134.GF5323@quack.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 10:01:34PM +0800, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 05-05-11 20:27:32, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 05:24:27AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Mon 02-05-11 11:17:53, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > > This removes writeback_control.wb_start and does more straightforward > > > > sync livelock prevention by setting .older_than_this to prevent extra > > > > inodes from being enqueued in the first place. > > > > > > > > --- linux-next.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c 2011-05-02 11:17:24.000000000 +0800 > > > > +++ linux-next/fs/fs-writeback.c 2011-05-02 11:17:27.000000000 +0800 > > > > @@ -683,10 +672,12 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ > > > > * (quickly) tag currently dirty pages > > > > * (maybe slowly) sync all tagged pages > > > > */ > > > > - if (wbc.sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL || wbc.tagged_sync) > > > > + if (wbc.sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL || wbc.tagged_sync) { > > > > write_chunk = LONG_MAX; > > > > + oldest_jif = jiffies; > > > > + wbc.older_than_this = &oldest_jif; > > > > + } > > > What are the implications of not doing dirty-time livelock avoidance for > > > other types of writeback? Is that a mistake? I'd prefer to have in > > > wb_writeback(): > > > if (wbc.for_kupdate) > > > oldest_jif = jiffies - msecs_to_jiffies(dirty_expire_interval * 10); > > > else > > > oldest_jif = jiffies; > > > wbc.older_than_this = &oldest_jif; > > > > > > And when you have this, you can make wbc.older_than_this just a plain > > > number and remove all those checks for wbc.older_than_this == NULL. > > > > Good point. Here is the fixed patch. Will you send the patch to change > > the type when the current patches are settled down? > OK, I will do that. Thank you. > > @@ -686,7 +674,9 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ > > if (wbc.sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL || wbc.tagged_sync) > > write_chunk = LONG_MAX; > > > > - wbc.wb_start = jiffies; /* livelock avoidance */ > > + oldest_jif = jiffies; > > + wbc.older_than_this = &oldest_jif; > > + > I might be already confused with all the code moving around but won't > this overwrite the value set for the for_kupdate case? It's the opposite -- it will be overwritten inside the loop by for_kupdate, which may run for long time and hence need to update oldest_jif from time to time. Thanks, Fengguang