From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Avoid livelocking of WB_SYNC_ALL writeback
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 02:36:14 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101106013613.GE23393@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1288992383-25475-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
Can you please keep linux-mm@kvack.org in the loop on writeback stuff?
I Cc'd it now, here is the full quote:
On Fri, Nov 05, 2010 at 10:26:23PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> When wb_writeback() is called in WB_SYNC_ALL mode, work->nr_to_write is usually
> set to LONG_MAX. The logic in wb_writeback() then calls __writeback_inodes_sb()
> with nr_to_write == MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES and thus we easily end up with negative
> nr_to_write after the function returns. wb_writeback() then decides we need
> another round of writeback but this is wrong in some cases! For example when
> a single large file is continuously dirtied, we would never finish syncing
> it because each pass would be able to write MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES and inode dirty
> timestamp never gets updated (as inode is never completely clean).
>
> Fix the issue by setting nr_to_write to LONG_MAX in WB_SYNC_ALL mode. We do not
> need nr_to_write in WB_SYNC_ALL mode anyway since livelock avoidance is done
> differently for it.
>
> After this patch, program from http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/10/24/154 is no longer
> able to stall sync forever.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> ---
> fs/fs-writeback.c | 18 ++++++++++++++----
> 1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> Fengguang, I've been testing with those writeback fixes you reposted
> a few days ago and I've been able to still reproduce livelocks with
> Jan Engelhard's test case. Using writeback tracing I've tracked the
> problem to the above and with this patch, sync finishes OK (well, it still
> takes about 15 minutes but that's about expected time given the throughput
> I see to the disk - the test case randomly dirties pages in a huge file).
> So could you please add this patch to the previous two send them to Jens
> for inclusion?
>
> diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> index 6b4d02a..d5873a6 100644
> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> @@ -629,6 +629,7 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
> };
> unsigned long oldest_jif;
> long wrote = 0;
> + long write_chunk;
> struct inode *inode;
>
> if (wbc.for_kupdate) {
> @@ -640,6 +641,15 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
> wbc.range_start = 0;
> wbc.range_end = LLONG_MAX;
> }
> + /*
> + * In WB_SYNC_ALL mode, we just want to ignore nr_to_write as
> + * we need to write everything and livelock avoidance is implemented
> + * differently.
> + */
> + if (wbc.sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE)
> + write_chunk = MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES;
> + else
> + write_chunk = LONG_MAX;
>
> wbc.wb_start = jiffies; /* livelock avoidance */
> for (;;) {
> @@ -665,7 +675,7 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
> break;
>
> wbc.more_io = 0;
> - wbc.nr_to_write = MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES;
> + wbc.nr_to_write = write_chunk;
> wbc.pages_skipped = 0;
>
> trace_wbc_writeback_start(&wbc, wb->bdi);
> @@ -675,8 +685,8 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
> writeback_inodes_wb(wb, &wbc);
> trace_wbc_writeback_written(&wbc, wb->bdi);
>
> - work->nr_pages -= MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES - wbc.nr_to_write;
> - wrote += MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES - wbc.nr_to_write;
> + work->nr_pages -= write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
> + wrote += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
>
> /*
> * If we consumed everything, see if we have more
> @@ -691,7 +701,7 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
> /*
> * Did we write something? Try for more
> */
> - if (wbc.nr_to_write < MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES)
> + if (wbc.nr_to_write < write_chunk)
> continue;
> /*
> * Nothing written. Wait for some inode to
> --
> 1.7.1
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-06 1:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <1288992383-25475-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz>
2010-11-06 1:36 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2010-11-07 13:07 ` Jan Kara
[not found] ` <20101105223038.GA16666@lst.de>
2010-11-06 2:55 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-06 16:39 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-07 13:34 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-06 4:12 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-07 13:22 ` Jan Kara
2010-11-07 13:37 ` 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=20101106013613.GE23393@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.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