[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 15:38:45 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch] fix up lock order reversal in writeback
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 10:30:37PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 11/16/10 7:01 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 16-11-10 22:00:58, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >> I saw a lock order warning on ext4 trigger. This should solve it.
> >> Raciness shouldn't matter much, because writeback can stop just
> >> after we make the test and return anyway (so the API is racy anyway).
> > Hmm, for now the fix is OK. Ultimately, we probably want to call
> > writeback_inodes_sb() directly from all the callers. They all just want to
> > reduce uncertainty of delayed allocation reservations by writing delayed
> > data and actually wait for some of the writeback to happen before they
> > retry again the allocation.
>
> For ext4, at least, it's just best-effort. We're not actually out of
> space yet when this starts pushing. But it helps us avoid enospc:
>
> commit c8afb44682fcef6273e8b8eb19fab13ddd05b386
> Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
> Date: Wed Dec 23 07:58:12 2009 -0500
>
> ext4: flush delalloc blocks when space is low
>
> Creating many small files in rapid succession on a small
> filesystem can lead to spurious ENOSPC; on a 104MB filesystem:
>
> for i in `seq 1 22500`; do
> echo -n > $SCRATCH_MNT/$i
> echo XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX > $SCRATCH_MNT/$i
> done
>
> leads to ENOSPC even though after a sync, 40% of the fs is free
> again.
>
> <snip>
>
> We don't need it to be synchronous - in fact I didn't think it was ...
By synchronous, I just mean that the caller is the one who pushes
the data into writeout. It _may_ be better if it was done by background
writeback, with a feedback loop to throttle the caller (preferably
placed outside any locks it is holding).
To be pragmatic, I think the thing is fine to actually solve the
problem at hand. I was just saying that it has a tiny little hackish
feeling anyway, so a trylock will be right at home there :)
> ext4 should probably use btrfs's new variant and just get rid of the
> one I put in, for a very large system/filesystem it could end up doing
> a rather insane amount of IO when the fs starts to get full.
>
> as for the locking problems ... sorry about that!
That's no problem. So is that an ack? :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists