linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] writeback: make nr_to

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: <20110504115251.GC5853@localhost>
Date:	Wed, 4 May 2011 19:52:51 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] writeback: make nr_to_write a per-file limit

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:42:21PM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 05:17:10PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > This ensures large dirty files can be written in the full 4MB writeback
> > chunk size, rather than whatever remained quota in wbc->nr_to_write.
> 
> I like the high-level idea, but the implementation of overriding
> nr_to_write and then copying it back seems rather ugly.
> 
> The basic problem seems to be that struct writeback_control is
> designed to control writeback of a single file, but we keep abuse it
> for writing multiple files in writeback_sb_inodes and its callers.
> 
> It seems like we should only build the struct writeback_control from
> struct wb_writeback_work down in writeback_sb_inodes, even if that
> means passing some more information to it either in struct
> wb_writeback_work or on the stack.

Yes it's very reasonable and possible according to your notes in
another email.

> Then writeback_sb_inodes can do something like
> 
> 	if (wbc.sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE)
> 		wbc.nr_to_write = min(MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES, work->nr_pages);

I like the min() idea. However it have the side effect of (very possible)
smallish IO from balance_dirty_pages(), which may call us with small
->nr_pages. 

We may explicitly do "write_chunk = max(MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES, write_chunk)"
in balance_dirty_pages() to retain the old behavior.

> 	else
> 		wbc.nr_to_write = LONG_MAX;
> 
> for each inode it writes.

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/