| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 15:15:18 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 14/18] writeback: make writeback_control.nr_to_write
straight
On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 02:52:07PM +0800, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 12:07:40PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 07:29:10AM +0800, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 06:06:44AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > : writeback_single_inode(inode, wb, &wbc);
> > > > : work->nr_pages -= write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
> > > > : wrote += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
> > > > : if (wbc.pages_skipped) {
> > > > : /*
> > > > : * writeback is not making progress due to locked
> > > > : * buffers. Skip this inode for now.
> > > > : */
> > > > : redirty_tail(inode, wb);
> > > > : - }
> > > > : + } else if (!(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY))
> > > > : + wrote++;
> > > >
> > > > It looks a bit more clean to do
> > > >
> > > > : wrote += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
> > > > : + if (!(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY))
> > > > : + wrote++;
> > > > : if (wbc.pages_skipped) {
> > > > : /*
> > > > : * writeback is not making progress due to locked
> > > > : * buffers. Skip this inode for now.
> > > > : */
> > > > : redirty_tail(inode, wb);
> > > > : }
> > >
> > > But it's still in the wrong place - such post-write inode dirty
> > > processing is supposed to be isolated to writeback_single_inode().
> > > Spreading it across multiple locations is not, IMO, the nicest thing
> > > to do...
> >
> > Strictly speaking, it's post inspecting :)
> >
> > It does look reasonable and safe to move the pages_skipped post
> > processing into writeback_single_inode(). See the below patch.
>
> <sigh>
>
> That's not what I was referring to. The wbc.pages_skipped check is
> fine where it is.
>
> >
> > When doing this chunk,
> >
> > - if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) {
> > + if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0 && wbc->pages_skipped == 0) {
> >
> > I wonder in general sense (without knowing enough FS internals)
> > whether ->pages_skipped is that useful: if some locked buffer is
> > blocking all subsequent pages, then ->nr_to_write won't be able to
> > drop to zero. So the (wbc->pages_skipped == 0) test seems redundant..
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fengguang
> > ---
> > Subject: writeback: move pages_skipped post processing into writeback_single_inode()
> > Date: Fri May 20 11:42:42 CST 2011
> >
> > It's more logical to isolate post-write processings in writeback_single_inode().
> >
> > Note that it slightly changes behavior for write_inode_now() and sync_inode(),
> > which used to ignore pages_skipped.
> >
> > Proposed-by: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
>
> No, I didn't propose the change you've made in this patch. I've been
> asking you to fix the original patch, not proposing new changes to
> some other code. Please don't add my name to random tags in patches
> without asking me first.
OK, sorry, I'll keep that in mind in future.
> So, for the third time, please fix the original patch by moving the
> new "inode now clean" accounting to the "inode-now-clean" logic
> branch in writeback_single_inode().
>
> if (!(inode->i_state & I_FREEING)) {
> if (mapping_tagged(mapping, PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY)) {
> .....
> } else if (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY) {
> .....
> } else {
> /*
> * account for it here with all the other
> * inode-now-clean manipulations that we need
> * to do!
> */
That's what the original "writeback: introduce
writeback_control.inodes_cleaned" does. Given that it's opposed to add
writeback_control.inodes_cleaned, the only option remained is to add
one more argument "long *inode_cleaned" to writeback_single_inode()
like this.
Well it looks ugly and I wonder if you have any prettier version in
mind. This ugliness is the main reason I resist to do the change.
Thanks,
Fengguang
---
--- linux-next.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c 2011-05-20 15:09:11.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/fs/fs-writeback.c 2011-05-20 15:09:15.000000000 +0800
@@ -359,7 +359,7 @@ static void inode_wait_for_writeback(str
*/
static int
writeback_single_inode(struct inode *inode, struct bdi_writeback *wb,
- struct writeback_control *wbc)
+ struct writeback_control *wbc, long *inode_cleaned)
{
struct address_space *mapping = inode->i_mapping;
long nr_to_write = wbc->nr_to_write;
@@ -482,6 +482,7 @@ writeback_single_inode(struct inode *ino
* No need to add it back to the LRU.
*/
list_del_init(&inode->i_wb_list);
+ (*inode_cleaned)++;
}
}
inode_sync_complete(inode);
@@ -604,12 +605,10 @@ static long writeback_sb_inodes(struct s
wbc.nr_to_write = write_chunk;
wbc.pages_skipped = 0;
- writeback_single_inode(inode, wb, &wbc);
+ writeback_single_inode(inode, wb, &wbc, &wrote);
work->nr_pages -= write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
wrote += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
- if (!(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY))
- wrote++;
if (wbc.pages_skipped) {
/*
* writeback is not making progress due to locked
@@ -1352,6 +1351,7 @@ int write_inode_now(struct inode *inode,
.range_start = 0,
.range_end = LLONG_MAX,
};
+ long unused;
if (!mapping_cap_writeback_dirty(inode->i_mapping))
wbc.nr_to_write = 0;
@@ -1359,7 +1359,7 @@ int write_inode_now(struct inode *inode,
might_sleep();
spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
- ret = writeback_single_inode(inode, wb, &wbc);
+ ret = writeback_single_inode(inode, wb, &wbc, &unused);
spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
if (sync)
@@ -1383,10 +1383,11 @@ int sync_inode(struct inode *inode, stru
{
struct bdi_writeback *wb = &inode_to_bdi(inode)->wb;
int ret;
+ long unused;
spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
- ret = writeback_single_inode(inode, wb, wbc);
+ ret = writeback_single_inode(inode, wb, wbc, &unused);
spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
return ret;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists