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: <20090706131313.GR23611@kernel.dk>
Date:	Mon, 6 Jul 2009 15:13:13 +0200
From:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
To:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.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

On Mon, Jul 06 2009, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> 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).

That is correct. Note that these exit when they have been idle for a
while, for embedded and such you could make it more aggressive by
exiting quicker. The sync_supers should be directly fixable by your
sb_dirty() stuff.

So I don't think it's a huge change from what we currently have.

> 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?

You could replace the schedule_timeout() by a schedule(), and instead
have a single timer running that would scan the bdi_list and issue the
kupdated() timed writeback that is the reason it uses schedule_timeout()
now. Explicitly issued work will manually wake up the per-bdi thread(s).
That single timer could easily handle waking up bdi_sync_supers() as
well.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
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/