[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200910271926.15176.knikanth@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 19:26:14 +0530
From: Nikanth Karthikesan <knikanth@...e.de>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: WU Fengguang <wfg@...l.ustc.edu.cn>, npiggin@...e.de,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
hch@...radead.org, chris.mason@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] [PATCH] Avoid livelock for fsync
On Monday 26 October 2009 23:43:14 Jan Kara wrote:
> Hi,
>
> on my way back from Kernel Summit, I've coded the attached patch which
> implements livelock avoidance for write_cache_pages. We tag patches that
> should be written in the beginning of write_cache_pages and then write
> only tagged pages (see the patch for details). The patch is based on Nick's
> idea.
As I understand, livelock can be caused only by dirtying new pages.
So theoretically, if a process can dirty pages faster than we can tag pages
for writeback, even now isn't there a chance for livelock? But if it is really
a very fast operation and livelock is not possible, why not hold the tree_lock
during the entire period of tagging the pages for writeback i.e., call
tag_pages_for_writeback() under mapping->tree_lock? Would it cause
deadlock/starvation or some other serious problems?
Thanks
Nikanth
--
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