[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <471BB45D.8070509@nokia.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:19:41 +0300
From: Artem Bityutskiy <Artem.Bityutskiy@...ia.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: forcing write-back from FS - again
Hi Andrew,
some time ago we were talking about doing write-back from inside a file-system
(http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=119097117713616&w=2). You said that I'm not
the only person who needs this, because the same thing is needed for delayed
allocation.
The problem is that if we initiate write-back from prepare_write() and we are
having a dirty page lock, we deadlock in write_cache_pages() which tries to
lock the same page.
You suggested to enhance struct writeback_control and put page that should be
skipped.
I tried something like
diff --git a/include/linux/writeback.h b/include/linux/writeback.h
--- a/include/linux/writeback.h
+++ b/include/linux/writeback.h
@@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ struct writeback_control {
unsigned for_reclaim:1; /* Invoked from the page allocator */
unsigned for_writepages:1; /* This is a writepages() call */
unsigned range_cyclic:1; /* range_start is cyclic */
+ struct page *skip_pg; /* do not write this page back */
void *fs_private; /* For use by ->writepages() */
};
diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
--- a/mm/page-writeback.c
+++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
@@ -641,6 +641,9 @@ retry:
for (i = 0; i < nr_pages; i++) {
struct page *page = pvec.pages[i];
+ if (unlikely(page == wbc->skip_pg))
+ continue;
+
/*
* At this point we hold neither mapping->tree_lock nor
* lock on the page itself: the page may be truncated
but it does not dot actually work, because if we have two processes forcing
write-back from write_page(), they will mutually deadlock (A waits in
write_cache_pages() on a page B has locked, B waits on inode or page A has locked).
So this way is not ok, do you have any other ideas?
We could mark page clean temporarily before doing write-back, and mark it dirty
again, but this seems to be inefficient (although I'm not sure, need to dig
these functions deeper, but they _seem_ to traverse the radix tree and change
tags, so marking one page dirty may need to change many tags, but again, I did
not really dig tis yet).
I'd appreciate any suggestions. Thanks!
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
-
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