[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130321015721.GL17758@dastard>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 12:57:21 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, axboe@...nel.dk, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
fengguang.wu@...el.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jmoyer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] writeback: replace custom worker pool implementation
with unbound workqueue
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:28:24AM -0700, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Jan.
>
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> > Well, but what you often get is just output of sysrq-w, or sysrq-t, or
> > splat from scheduler about stuck task. You often don't have the comfort of
> > tracing... Can't we somehow change 'comm' of the task when it starts
> > processing work of some bdi?
>
> You sure can but I'd prefer not to do that. If you wanna do it
> properly, you have to grab task lock every time a work item starts
> execution. I'm not sure how beneficial having the block device
> identifier would be. Backtrace would be there the same. Is identifying
> the block device that important?
When you have a system that has 50+ active filesystems (pretty
common in the distributed storage environments were every disk has
it's own filesystem), knowing which filesystem(s) are getting stuck
in writeback from the sysrq-w or hangcheck output is pretty damn
important....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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