[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110413215448.GE4648@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 23:54:48 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] writeback: skip balance_dirty_pages() for
in-memory fs
On Wed 13-04-11 16:59:40, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> This avoids unnecessary checks and dirty throttling on tmpfs/ramfs.
>
> It can also prevent
>
> [ 388.126563] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000050
>
> in the balance_dirty_pages tracepoint, which will call
>
> dev_name(mapping->backing_dev_info->dev)
>
> but shmem_backing_dev_info.dev is NULL.
>
> Summary notes about the tmpfs/ramfs behavior changes:
>
> As for 2.6.36 and older kernels, the tmpfs writes will sleep inside
> balance_dirty_pages() as long as we are over the (dirty+background)/2
> global throttle threshold. This is because both the dirty pages and
> threshold will be 0 for tmpfs/ramfs. Hence this test will always
> evaluate to TRUE:
>
> dirty_exceeded =
> (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback >= bdi_thresh)
> || (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback >= dirty_thresh);
>
> For 2.6.37, someone complained that the current logic does not allow the
> users to set vm.dirty_ratio=0. So commit 4cbec4c8b9 changed the test to
>
> dirty_exceeded =
> (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback > bdi_thresh)
> || (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback > dirty_thresh);
>
> So 2.6.37 will behave differently for tmpfs/ramfs: it will never get
> throttled unless the global dirty threshold is exceeded (which is very
> unlikely to happen; once happen, will block many tasks).
>
> I'd say that the 2.6.36 behavior is very bad for tmpfs/ramfs. It means
> for a busy writing server, tmpfs write()s may get livelocked! The
> "inadvertent" throttling can hardly bring help to any workload because
> of its "either no throttling, or get throttled to death" property.
>
> So based on 2.6.37, this patch won't bring more noticeable changes.
>
> CC: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
> Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Looks good.
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Honza
> ---
> mm/page-writeback.c | 10 ++++------
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> --- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c 2011-03-03 14:43:37.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c 2011-03-03 14:43:51.000000000 +0800
> @@ -244,13 +244,8 @@ void task_dirty_inc(struct task_struct *
> static void bdi_writeout_fraction(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
> long *numerator, long *denominator)
> {
> - if (bdi_cap_writeback_dirty(bdi)) {
> - prop_fraction_percpu(&vm_completions, &bdi->completions,
> + prop_fraction_percpu(&vm_completions, &bdi->completions,
> numerator, denominator);
> - } else {
> - *numerator = 0;
> - *denominator = 1;
> - }
> }
>
> static inline void task_dirties_fraction(struct task_struct *tsk,
> @@ -495,6 +490,9 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
> bool dirty_exceeded = false;
> struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info;
>
> + if (!bdi_cap_account_dirty(bdi))
> + return;
> +
> for (;;) {
> struct writeback_control wbc = {
> .sync_mode = WB_SYNC_NONE,
>
>
--
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