From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
Linux-RT <linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] locking/rwbase: Mitigate indefinite writer starvation
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2023 15:30:35 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87ttzyyigk.ffs@tglx> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230120140847.4pjqf3oinemokcyp@techsingularity.net>
Mel!
On Fri, Jan 20 2023 at 14:08, Mel Gorman wrote:
> dio_truncate is not a realtime application but indefinite writer starvation
> is undesirable. The test case has one writer appending and truncating files
> A and B while multiple readers read file A. The readers and writer are
> contending for one file's inode lock which never succeeds as the readers
> keep reading until the writer is done which never happens.
>
> This patch records a timestamp when the first writer is blocked. DL /
git grep 'This patch' Documentation/process/
> RT tasks can continue to take the lock for read as long as readers exist
> indefinitely. Other readers can acquire the read lock unless a writer
> has been blocked for a minimum of 4ms. This is sufficient to allow the
> dio_truncate test case to complete within the 30 minutes timeout.
I'm not opposed to this, but what's the actual reason for this pulled
out of thin air timeout?
What's the downside of actually forcing !RT readers into the slowpath
once there is a writer waiting?
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-06 14:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-20 14:08 [PATCH v4] locking/rwbase: Mitigate indefinite writer starvation Mel Gorman
2023-01-27 11:00 ` Mel Gorman
2023-02-06 14:30 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2023-02-08 20:19 ` Mel Gorman
2023-02-15 16:02 ` Sebastian Andrzej Siewior
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=87ttzyyigk.ffs@tglx \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=bigeasy@linutronix.de \
--cc=dave@stgolabs.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@techsingularity.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--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