| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 09:08:59 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: "jens.axboe@...cle.com" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"chris.mason@...cle.com" <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Fix busyloop in wb_writeback()
On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 01:43:56AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Sun 20-09-09 10:35:28, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 01:22:48AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > If all inodes are under writeback (e.g. in case when there's only one inode
> > > with dirty pages), wb_writeback() with WB_SYNC_NONE work basically degrades
> > > to busylooping until I_SYNC flags of the inode is cleared. Fix the problem by
> > > waiting on I_SYNC flags of an inode on b_more_io list in case we failed to
> > > write anything.
> >
> > Sorry, I realized that inode_wait_for_writeback() waits for I_SYNC.
> > But inodes in b_more_io are not expected to have I_SYNC set. So your
> > patch looks like a big no-op?
> Hmm, I don't think so. writeback_single_inode() does:
> if (inode->i_state & I_SYNC) {
> /*
> * If this inode is locked for writeback and we are not
> * doing
> * writeback-for-data-integrity, move it to b_more_io so
> * that
> * writeback can proceed with the other inodes on s_io.
> *
> * We'll have another go at writing back this inode when we
> * completed a full scan of b_io.
> */
> if (!wait) {
> requeue_io(inode);
> return 0;
> }
>
> So when we see inode under writeback, we put it to b_more_io. So I think
> my patch really fixes the issue when two threads are racing on writing the
> same inode.
Ah OK. So it busy loops when there are more syncing threads than dirty
files. For example, one bdi flush thread plus one process running
balance_dirty_pages().
> > The busy loop does exists, when bdi is congested.
> > In this case, write_cache_pages() will refuse to write anything,
> > we used to be calling congestion_wait() to take a breath, but now
> > wb_writeback() purged that call and thus created a busy loop.
> I don't think congestion is an issue here. The device needen't be
> congested for the busyloop to happen.
bdi congestion is a different case. When there are only one syncing
thread, b_more_io inodes won't have I_SYNC, so your patch is a no-op.
wb_writeback() or any of its sub-routines must wait/yield for a while
to avoid busy looping on the congestion. Where is the wait with Jens'
new code?
Another question is, why wbc.more_io can be ignored for kupdate syncs?
I guess it would lead to slow writeback of large files.
This patch reflects my concerns on the two problems.
Thanks,
Fengguang
---
fs/fs-writeback.c | 6 ++++--
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--- linux.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c 2009-09-20 10:44:25.000000000 +0800
+++ linux/fs/fs-writeback.c 2009-09-21 08:53:09.000000000 +0800
@@ -818,8 +818,10 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ
/*
* If we ran out of stuff to write, bail unless more_io got set
*/
- if (wbc.nr_to_write > 0 || wbc.pages_skipped > 0) {
- if (wbc.more_io && !wbc.for_kupdate)
+ if (wbc.nr_to_write > 0) {
+ if (wbc.encountered_congestion)
+ congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ);
+ if (wbc.more_io)
continue;
break;
}
--
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