linux-kernel - Re: endless sync on bdi_sched

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 22 Apr 2010 14:48:28 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Denys Fedorysychenko <nuclearcat@...learcat.com>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: endless sync on bdi_sched_wait()? 2.6.33.1

On Thu 22-04-10 10:06:52, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 03:27:18PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 21-04-10 11:54:28, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 02:33:09AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Mon 19-04-10 17:04:58, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > The third flush - the sync one - does:
> .....
> > > > > some 75 seconds later having written only 1024 pages. In the mean
> > > > > time, the traces show dd blocked in balance_dirty_pages():
> .....
> > > > > And it appears to stay blocked there without doing any writeback at
> > > > > all - there are no wbc_balance_dirty_pages_written traces at all.
> > > > > That is, it is blocking until the number of dirty pages is dropping
> > > > > below the dirty threshold, then continuing to write and dirty more
> > > > > pages.
> > > >   I think this happens because sync writeback is running so I_SYNC is set
> > > > and thus we cannot do any writeout for the inode from balance_dirty_pages.
> > > 
> > > It's not even calling into writeback so the I_SYNC flag is way out of
> > > scope ;)
> >   Are you sure? The tracepoints are in wb_writeback() but
> > writeback_inodes_wbc() calls directly into writeback_inodes_wb() so you
> > won't see any of the tracepoints to trigger. So how do you know we didn't
> > get to writeback_single_inode?
> 
> The balance_dirty_pages() tracing code added this hunk:
> 
> @@ -536,11 +537,13 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
>                  * threshold otherwise wait until the disk writes catch
>                  * up.
>                  */
> +               trace_wbc_balance_dirty_start(&wbc);
>                 if (bdi_nr_reclaimable > bdi_thresh) {
>                         writeback_inodes_wbc(&wbc);
>                         pages_written += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
>                         get_dirty_limits(&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh,
>                                        &bdi_thresh, bdi);
> +                       trace_wbc_balance_dirty_written(&wbc);
>                 }
> 
>                 /*
> 
> So if we tried to do writeback from here, the
> wbc_balance_dirty_written trace would have been emitted, and that is
> not showing up very often in any of the traces. e.g:
> 
> $ grep balance t.t |grep start |wc -l
> 4356
> $ grep balance t.t |grep wait |wc -l
> 2171
> $ grep balance t.t |grep written |wc -l
> 7
  Ah, OK. I've missed the 'written' trace. Thanks for explanation. So it
means that enough pages are under writeback and we just wait in
balance_dirty_pages for writes to finish. That works as expected. Fine.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/