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]

Message-ID: <20100726125954.GT5300@csn.ul.ie>
Date:	Mon, 26 Jul 2010 13:59:55 +0100
From:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
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

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 08:56:35PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > @@ -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.
> +                        */

s/reducing/reduce/

Otherwise, it's enough detail to know what is going on. Thanks

Thanks

> +                       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;
> 

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
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/