[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100422124827.GA5805@quack.suse.cz>
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists