[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110607160245.9270aa27.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2011 16:02:45 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/15] writeback: update dirtied_when for synced inode
to prevent livelock
On Wed, 08 Jun 2011 05:32:38 +0800
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> Explicitly update .dirtied_when on synced inodes, so that they are no
> longer considered for writeback in the next round.
It sounds like this somewhat answers my questions for [1/15].
But I'm not seeing a description of exactly what caused the livelock.
> We'll do more aggressive "keep writeback as long as we wrote something"
> logic in wb_writeback(). The "use LONG_MAX .nr_to_write" trick in commit
> b9543dac5bbc ("writeback: avoid livelocking WB_SYNC_ALL writeback") will
> no longer be enough to stop sync livelock.
>
> It can prevent both of the following livelock schemes:
>
> - while true; do echo data >> f; done
> - while true; do touch f; done
You're kidding. This livelocks sync(1)? When did we break this?
Why is this? Because the inode keeps on getting rotated to head-of-list?
--
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