linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/10] writeback: switch to per-bdi threads for flushing data

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

Message-ID: <4A51F443.8070402@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 06 Jul 2009 15:55:31 +0300
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	chris.mason@...cle.com, david@...morbit.com, hch@...radead.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, jack@...e.cz,
	yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com, richard@....demon.co.uk,
	damien.wyart@...e.fr, fweisbec@...il.com, Alan.Brunelle@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] writeback: switch to per-bdi threads for flushing
 data

Jens Axboe wrote:
> +/*
> + * kupdated() used to do this. We cannot do it from the bdi_forker_task()
> + * or we risk deadlocking on ->s_umount. The longer term solution would be
> + * to implement sync_supers_bdi() or similar and simply do it from the
> + * bdi writeback tasks individually.
> + */
> +static int bdi_sync_supers(void *unused)
> +{
> +	set_user_nice(current, 0);
> +
> +	while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
> +		set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> +		schedule();
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Do this periodically, like kupdated() did before.
> +		 */
> +		sync_supers();
> +	}
> +
> +	return 0;

ATM we have one timer for both data and super-block synchronization.
With per-bdi write-back we have:

1. one timer for super blocks
2. many per-bdi timers for data (schedule_timeout() is essentially
   using timers).

This is not nice, because each timer is an additional source of
power-savings killers. I mean, it is more power management (PM)
friendly to have less timers and disturb CPU less, make CPU wake
up from retention less frequently.

I do not challange the per-bdi idea at all, but is it possible to
think about a more PM-friendly desing and have one source of
periodic write-back, not many. I mean, could there be one timer
which periodically syncs supers and wakes up the BDI write-back
tasks?

I've just started looking at your work, so I do not have good overall
picture of what's going on, so apologies in advance if I missed
something.

-- 
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/