[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140218225548.GI31892@mtj.dyndns.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:55:48 -0500
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Derek Basehore <dbasehore@...omium.org>
Cc: Alexander Viro <viro@...to.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, bleung@...omium.org, sonnyrao@...omium.org,
semenzato@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] backing_dev: Fix hung task on sync
Hello,
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 08:12:17PM -0800, Derek Basehore wrote:
> bdi_wakeup_thread_delayed used the mod_delayed_work function to schedule work
> to writeback dirty inodes. The problem with this is that it can delay work that
> is scheduled for immediate execution, such as the work from sync_inodes_sb.
> This can happen since mod_delayed_work can now steal work from a work_queue.
> This fixes the problem by using queue_delayed_work instead. This is a
> regression from the move to the bdi workqueue design.
>
> The reason that this causes a problem is that laptop-mode will change the
> delay, dirty_writeback_centisecs, to 60000 (10 minutes) by default. In the case
> that bdi_wakeup_thread_delayed races with sync_inodes_sb, sync will be stopped
> for 10 minutes and trigger a hung task. Even if dirty_writeback_centisecs is
> not long enough to cause a hung task, we still don't want to delay sync for
> that long.
Oops.
> For the same reason, this also changes bdi_writeback_workfn to immediately
> queue the work again in the case that the work_list is not empty. The same
> problem can happen if the sync work is run on the rescue worker.
>
> Signed-off-by: Derek Basehore <dbasehore@...omium.org>
> ---
> fs/fs-writeback.c | 5 +++--
> mm/backing-dev.c | 2 +-
> 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> index e0259a1..95b7b8c 100644
> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> @@ -1047,8 +1047,9 @@ void bdi_writeback_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
> trace_writeback_pages_written(pages_written);
> }
>
> - if (!list_empty(&bdi->work_list) ||
> - (wb_has_dirty_io(wb) && dirty_writeback_interval))
> + if (!list_empty(&bdi->work_list))
> + mod_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &wb->dwork, 0);
> + else if (wb_has_dirty_io(wb) && dirty_writeback_interval)
> queue_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &wb->dwork,
> msecs_to_jiffies(dirty_writeback_interval * 10));
Can you please add some comments explaining why the specific variants
are being used here?
> diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c
> index ce682f7..3fde024 100644
> --- a/mm/backing-dev.c
> +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
> @@ -294,7 +294,7 @@ void bdi_wakeup_thread_delayed(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> unsigned long timeout;
>
> timeout = msecs_to_jiffies(dirty_writeback_interval * 10);
> - mod_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &bdi->wb.dwork, timeout);
> + queue_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &bdi->wb.dwork, timeout);
and here?
Hmmm.... but doesn't this create an opposite problem? Now a flush
queued for an earlier time may be overridden by something scheduled
later, no?
Thanks.
--
tejun
--
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