lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [more markup]  [less markup]  [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateTue, 4 Dec 2007 01:06:06 -0800
From"Michael Rubin" <>
SubjectRe: [patch 1/1] Writeback fix for concurrent large and small file writes
On Nov 29, 2007 5:32 PM, Fengguang Wu <wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cnwrote:
> > On Nov 28, 2007 4:34 PM, Fengguang Wu <wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn> wrote:
> > > Could you demonstrate the situation? Or if I guess it right, could it
> > > be fixed by the following patch?

Feng I am sorry to have been mistaken but I reran my tests and I am
now finding that the patch you gave me is NOT fixing the problem. The
patch I refer to is the one you posted on this thread that adds a
requeue_io in __sync_single_inode.

I tarred up my test code. It is still in very rough shape but it can
reproduce the issue. You can find it here:

http://neverthere.org/mhr/wb/wb-test.tar.bz2

Just make the test and run it with the args "-duration 0:5:0
-starvation". You must be root so it can set some sysctl values.

> One major concern could be whether a continuous writer dirting pages
> at the 'right' pace will generate a steady flow of write I/Os which are
> _tiny_hence_inefficient_.
>
> So it's not a problem in *theory* :-)
>
> > I will post this change for 2.6.24 and list Feng as author. If that's
> > ok with Feng.

I am going to try to track down what is up in 2.6.24 and see if I can
find a less dramatic fix than my tree patch for the short term. If you
get a chance to reproduce the problem with my test on your patch that
would rock.

I still would like to see my full patch accepted into 2.6.25. A patch
should be arriving shortly that will incorporate my larger patch and
Qi Yong's fix for skip-writing-data-pages-when-inode-is-under-i_sync.
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/849493

As always thanks for your patience,

mrubin


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-12-04 10:09    [from the cache]
©2003-2009