[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100223032317.GG23832@thunk.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:23:17 -0500
From: tytso@....edu
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
jengelh@...ozas.de, stable@...nel.org, gregkh@...e.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: Fix broken sync writeback
On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 01:53:50PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> Ignoring nr_to_write completely can lead to issues like we used to
> have with XFS - it would write an entire extent (8GB) at a time and
> starve all other writeback. Those starvation problems - which were
> very obvious on NFS servers - went away when we trimmed back the
> amount to write in a single pass to saner amounts...
How do you determine what a "sane amount" is? Is it something that is
determined dynamically, or is it a hard-coded or manually tuned value?
> As to a generic solution, why do you think I've been advocating
> separate per-sb data sync and inode writeback methods that separate
> data writeback from inode writeback for so long? ;)
Heh.
> > This is done to avoid a lock inversion, and so this is an
> > ext4-specific thing (at least I don't think XFS's delayed allocation
> > has this misfeature).
>
> Not that I know of, but then again I don't know what inversion ext4
> is trying to avoid. Can you describe the inversion, Ted?
The locking order is journal_start_handle (starting a micro
transaction in jbd) -> lock_page. A more detailed description of why
this locking order is non-trivial for us to fix in ext4 can be found
in the description of commit f0e6c985.
Regards,
- Ted
--
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