linux-kernel - Re: 2.6.23-rc6-mm1 -- mkfs stuck in 'D'

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070924081207.GA2266@mail.ustc.edu.cn>
Date:	Mon, 24 Sep 2007 16:12:07 +0800
From:	Fengguang Wu <wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc:	Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...dowen.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, spamtrap@...bisoft.de
Subject: Re: 2.6.23-rc6-mm1 -- mkfs stuck in 'D'

On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 09:35:23AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 11:01:10 +0800 Fengguang Wu <wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn>
> wrote:
> 
> > > That is an interesting idea how about this:
> > 
> > It looks like a workaround, but it does solve the most important problem.
> > And it is a good logic by itself.  So I'd vote for it.
> > 
> > The fundamental problem is that the per-bdi-writeback-completion based
> > estimation is not accurate under light loads. The problem remains for
> > a light-load sda when there is a heavy-load sdb. 
> 
> Well, sure, in that case sda would get to write out a lot of small
> things. But in that case it would be fair wrt the other writers.

Hmm, I cannot agree it to be fair - but pretty acceptable ;-)
Your patch already brings great improvements in the multi-bdi case.

> > One more workaround
> > could be to grant bdi(s) a minimal bdi_thresh. 
> 
> Ah, no, that is no good. For if there were a lot of BDIs this might
> happen:
>   nr_bdis * min_thresh > dirty_limit.

Sure it is in the extreme case. However the limit could be ensured
if we really want(which I'm really not sure;-) it:

        if (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback < dirty_thresh &&
                bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback <= bdi_min_thresh)
                break;

> > Or better to adjust the estimation logic?
> 
> Not sure what we can do here. The current thing is simple, fast and fair.

Agreed.

> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * break out early when:
> > > +		 *  - we're below the bdi limit
> > > +		 *  - we're below half the total limit
> > > +		 *
> > > +		 * we let the numbers exceed the strict bdi limit if the total
> > > +		 * numbers are too low, this avoids (excessive) small writeouts.
> > > +		 */
> > > +		if (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback <= bdi_thresh ||
> > > +		    nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback < dirty_thresh / 2)
> > >  			break;
> > 
> > This may be slightly better:
> > 
> > 		if (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback <= bdi_thresh)
> >                         break;
> >                 /*
> >                  * Throttle it only when the background writeback cannot catchup.
> >                  */
> >                 if (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback <
> >                                 (background_thresh + dirty_thresh) / 2)
> > 			break;
> 
> Ah, indeed. Good idea.

Thank you :-)

-
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/