linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/6] writeback: sync expired inodes first in background writeback

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 26 Jul 2010 20:56:35 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] writeback: sync expired inodes first in background
 writeback

> > @@ -232,8 +232,15 @@ static void move_expired_inodes(struct l
> >  	while (!list_empty(delaying_queue)) {
> >  		inode = list_entry(delaying_queue->prev, struct inode, i_list);
> >  		if (expire_interval &&
> > -		    inode_dirtied_after(inode, older_than_this))
> > -			break;
> > +		    inode_dirtied_after(inode, older_than_this)) {
> > +			if (wbc->for_background &&
> > +			    list_empty(dispatch_queue) && list_empty(&tmp)) {
> > +				expire_interval >>= 1;
> > +				older_than_this = jiffies - expire_interval;
> > +				continue;
> > +			} else
> > +				break;
> > +		}
> 
> This needs a comment.
> 
> I think what it is saying is that if background flush is active but no
> inodes are old enough, consider newer inodes. This is on the assumption
> that page reclaim has encountered dirty pages and the dirty inodes are
> still too young.

Yes this should be commented. How about this one?

@@ -232,8 +232,20 @@ static void move_expired_inodes(struct l
        while (!list_empty(delaying_queue)) {
                inode = list_entry(delaying_queue->prev, struct inode, i_list);
                if (expire_interval &&
-                   inode_dirtied_after(inode, older_than_this))
+                   inode_dirtied_after(inode, older_than_this)) {
+                       /*
+                        * background writeback will start with expired inodes,
+                        * and then fresh inodes. This order helps reducing
+                        * the number of dirty pages reaching the end of LRU
+                        * lists and cause trouble to the page reclaim.
+                        */
+                       if (wbc->for_background &&
+                           list_empty(dispatch_queue) && list_empty(&tmp)) {
+                               expire_interval = 0;
+                               continue;
+                       }
                        break;
+               }
                if (sb && sb != inode->i_sb)
                        do_sb_sort = 1;
                sb = inode->i_sb;

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/