linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] writeback: Don't wait for completion in writeback_inodes_sb

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: <20110629175534.GA32236@infradead.org>
Date:	Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:55:34 -0400
From:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Curt Wohlgemuth <curtw@...gle.com>,
	Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	fengguang.wu@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: Don't wait for completion in
 writeback_inodes_sb_nr

On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 06:57:14PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > For sys_sync I'm pretty sure we could simply remove the
> > writeback_inodes_sb call and get just as good if not better performance,
>   Actually, it won't with current code. Because WB_SYNC_ALL writeback
> currently has the peculiarity that it looks like:
>   for all inodes {
>     write all inode data
>     wait for inode data
>   }
> while to achieve good performance we actually need something like
>   for all inodes
>     write all inode data
>   for all inodes
>     wait for inode data
> It makes a difference in an order of magnitude when there are lots of
> smallish files - SLES had a bug like this so I know from user reports ;)

I don't think that's true.  The WB_SYNC_ALL writeback is done using
sync_inodes_sb, which operates as:

  for all dirty inodes in bdi:
     if inode belongs to sb
        write all inode data

  for all inodes in sb:
     wait for inode data

we still do that in a big for each sb loop, though.

>   You mean that sync(1) would actually write the data itself? It would
> certainly make some things simpler but it has its problems as well - for
> example sync racing with flusher thread writing back inodes can create
> rather bad IO pattern...

Only the second pass.  The idea is that we first try to use the flusher
threads for good I/O patterns, but if we can't get that to work only
block the caller and not everyone.  But that's just an idea so far,
it would need serious benchmark.  And despite what I claimed before
we actually do the wait in the caller context already anyway, which
already gives you the easy part of the above effect.

--
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/