| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20110422022459.GA6199@localhost>
Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 10:24:59 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
Itaru Kitayama <kitayama@...bb4u.ne.jp>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] writeback: sync expired inodes first in background
writeback
On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:04:05AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 21-04-11 12:10:11, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > Still, given wb_writeback() is the only caller of both
> > > > __writeback_inodes_sb and writeback_inodes_wb(), I'm wondering if
> > > > moving the queue_io calls up into wb_writeback() would clean up this
> > > > logic somewhat. I think Jan mentioned doing something like this as
> > > > well elsewhere in the thread...
> > >
> > > Unfortunately they call queue_io() inside the lock..
> >
> > OK, let's try moving up the lock too. Do you like this change? :)
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fengguang
> > ---
> > fs/fs-writeback.c | 22 ++++++----------------
> > mm/backing-dev.c | 4 ++++
> > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- linux-next.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c 2011-04-21 12:04:02.000000000 +0800
> > +++ linux-next/fs/fs-writeback.c 2011-04-21 12:05:54.000000000 +0800
> > @@ -591,7 +591,6 @@ void writeback_inodes_wb(struct bdi_writ
> >
> > if (!wbc->wb_start)
> > wbc->wb_start = jiffies; /* livelock avoidance */
> > - spin_lock(&inode_wb_list_lock);
> >
> > if (list_empty(&wb->b_io))
> > queue_io(wb, wbc);
> > @@ -610,22 +609,9 @@ void writeback_inodes_wb(struct bdi_writ
> > if (ret)
> > break;
> > }
> > - spin_unlock(&inode_wb_list_lock);
> > /* Leave any unwritten inodes on b_io */
> > }
> >
> > -static void __writeback_inodes_sb(struct super_block *sb,
> > - struct bdi_writeback *wb, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> > -{
> > - WARN_ON(!rwsem_is_locked(&sb->s_umount));
> > -
> > - spin_lock(&inode_wb_list_lock);
> > - if (list_empty(&wb->b_io))
> > - queue_io(wb, wbc);
> > - writeback_sb_inodes(sb, wb, wbc, true);
> > - spin_unlock(&inode_wb_list_lock);
> > -}
> > -
> > static inline bool over_bground_thresh(void)
> > {
> > unsigned long background_thresh, dirty_thresh;
> > @@ -652,7 +638,7 @@ static unsigned long writeback_chunk_siz
> > * The intended call sequence for WB_SYNC_ALL writeback is:
> > *
> > * wb_writeback()
> > - * __writeback_inodes_sb() <== called only once
> > + * writeback_sb_inodes() <== called only once
> > * write_cache_pages() <== called once for each inode
> > * (quickly) tag currently dirty pages
> > * (maybe slowly) sync all tagged pages
> > @@ -742,10 +728,14 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ
> >
> > retry:
> > trace_wbc_writeback_start(&wbc, wb->bdi);
> > + spin_lock(&inode_wb_list_lock);
> > + if (list_empty(&wb->b_io))
> > + queue_io(wb, wbc);
> > if (work->sb)
> > - __writeback_inodes_sb(work->sb, wb, &wbc);
> > + writeback_sb_inodes(work->sb, wb, &wbc, true);
> > else
> > writeback_inodes_wb(wb, &wbc);
> > + spin_unlock(&inode_wb_list_lock);
> > trace_wbc_writeback_written(&wbc, wb->bdi);
> >
> > bdi_update_write_bandwidth(wb->bdi, wbc.wb_start);
> > --- linux-next.orig/mm/backing-dev.c 2011-04-21 12:06:02.000000000 +0800
> > +++ linux-next/mm/backing-dev.c 2011-04-21 12:06:31.000000000 +0800
> > @@ -268,7 +268,11 @@ static void bdi_flush_io(struct backing_
> > .nr_to_write = 1024,
> > };
> >
> > + spin_lock(&inode_wb_list_lock);
> > + if (list_empty(&wb->b_io))
> > + queue_io(wb, wbc);
> > writeback_inodes_wb(&bdi->wb, &wbc);
> > + spin_unlock(&inode_wb_list_lock);
> > }
> Three notes here:
> 1) You are missing the call to writeback_inodes_wb() in
> balance_dirty_pages() (the patch should really work for vanilla kernels).
Good catch! I'm using old cscope index so missed it..
> 2) The intention of both bdi_flush_io() and balance_dirty_pages() is to
> write .nr_to_write pages. So they should either do queue_io()
> unconditionally (I kind of like that for simplicity) or they should requeue
> once if they have not written enough - otherwise it could happen that they
> are called just at the moment when b_io contains a single inode with a few
> dirty pages and they end up doing almost nothing.
It makes much more sense to keep the policy consistent. When the
flusher and the throttled tasks are both actively manipulating the
shared lists but in different ways, how are we going to analyze the
resulted mixture behavior?
Note that bdi_flush_io() and balance_dirty_pages() both have outer
loops to retry writeout, so smallish b_io is not a problem at all.
> 3) I guess your patch does not compile because queue_io() is static ;).
Yeah, good spot~ :) Here is the updated patch. I feel like moving
bdi_flush_io() to fs-writeback.c rather than exporting the low level
queue_io() (and enable others to conveniently change the queue policy!).
balance_dirty_pages() cannot be moved.. so I plan to submit it after
any IO-less merges. It's a cleanup patch after all.
Thanks,
Fengguang
---
Subject: writeback: move queue_io() up
Date: Thu Apr 21 12:06:32 CST 2011
Refactor code for more logical code layout.
No behavior change.
- kill __writeback_inodes_sb()
- move bdi_flush_io() to fs-writeback.c
- elevate queue_io() and locking up to wb_writeback() and bdi_flush_io()
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
---
fs/fs-writeback.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++---------------
include/linux/writeback.h | 1 +
mm/backing-dev.c | 12 ------------
3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
--- linux-next.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c 2011-04-21 20:11:53.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/fs/fs-writeback.c 2011-04-21 21:11:02.000000000 +0800
@@ -577,10 +577,6 @@ void writeback_inodes_wb(struct bdi_writ
if (!wbc->wb_start)
wbc->wb_start = jiffies; /* livelock avoidance */
- spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
-
- if (list_empty(&wb->b_io))
- queue_io(wb, wbc);
while (!list_empty(&wb->b_io)) {
struct inode *inode = wb_inode(wb->b_io.prev);
@@ -596,20 +592,23 @@ void writeback_inodes_wb(struct bdi_writ
if (ret)
break;
}
- spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
/* Leave any unwritten inodes on b_io */
}
-static void __writeback_inodes_sb(struct super_block *sb,
- struct bdi_writeback *wb, struct writeback_control *wbc)
+void bdi_flush_io(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
{
- WARN_ON(!rwsem_is_locked(&sb->s_umount));
+ struct writeback_control wbc = {
+ .sync_mode = WB_SYNC_NONE,
+ .older_than_this = NULL,
+ .range_cyclic = 1,
+ .nr_to_write = 1024,
+ };
- spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
- if (list_empty(&wb->b_io))
- queue_io(wb, wbc);
- writeback_sb_inodes(sb, wb, wbc, true);
- spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
+ spin_lock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
+ if (list_empty(&bdi->wb.b_io))
+ queue_io(&bdi->wb, &wbc);
+ writeback_inodes_wb(&bdi->wb, &wbc);
+ spin_unlock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
}
/*
@@ -674,7 +673,7 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ
* The intended call sequence for WB_SYNC_ALL writeback is:
*
* wb_writeback()
- * __writeback_inodes_sb() <== called only once
+ * writeback_sb_inodes() <== called only once
* write_cache_pages() <== called once for each inode
* (quickly) tag currently dirty pages
* (maybe slowly) sync all tagged pages
@@ -722,10 +721,14 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ
retry:
trace_wbc_writeback_start(&wbc, wb->bdi);
+ spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
+ if (list_empty(&wb->b_io))
+ queue_io(wb, &wbc);
if (work->sb)
- __writeback_inodes_sb(work->sb, wb, &wbc);
+ writeback_sb_inodes(work->sb, wb, &wbc, true);
else
writeback_inodes_wb(wb, &wbc);
+ spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
trace_wbc_writeback_written(&wbc, wb->bdi);
work->nr_pages -= write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
--- linux-next.orig/mm/backing-dev.c 2011-04-21 20:11:52.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/mm/backing-dev.c 2011-04-21 20:16:15.000000000 +0800
@@ -260,18 +260,6 @@ int bdi_has_dirty_io(struct backing_dev_
return wb_has_dirty_io(&bdi->wb);
}
-static void bdi_flush_io(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
-{
- struct writeback_control wbc = {
- .sync_mode = WB_SYNC_NONE,
- .older_than_this = NULL,
- .range_cyclic = 1,
- .nr_to_write = 1024,
- };
-
- writeback_inodes_wb(&bdi->wb, &wbc);
-}
-
/*
* kupdated() used to do this. We cannot do it from the bdi_forker_thread()
* or we risk deadlocking on ->s_umount. The longer term solution would be
--- linux-next.orig/include/linux/writeback.h 2011-04-21 20:20:20.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/include/linux/writeback.h 2011-04-21 21:10:29.000000000 +0800
@@ -56,6 +56,7 @@ struct writeback_control {
*/
struct bdi_writeback;
int inode_wait(void *);
+void bdi_flush_io(struct backing_dev_info *bdi);
void writeback_inodes_sb(struct super_block *);
void writeback_inodes_sb_nr(struct super_block *, unsigned long nr);
int writeback_inodes_sb_if_idle(struct super_block *);
--
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