Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:55:14 +0200 | From | Jens Axboe <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] bdi_sync_writeback should WB_SYNC_NONE first |
| |
On Sun, Sep 27 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sun, 27 Sep 2009 18:44:32 +0200 Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Sep 27 2009, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 10:10:14 -0400 Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c > > > > index 8e1e5e1..27f8e0e 100644 > > > > --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c > > > > +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c > > > > @@ -225,7 +225,7 @@ static void bdi_sync_writeback(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, > > > > { > > > > struct wb_writeback_args args = { > > > > .sb = sb, > > > > - .sync_mode = WB_SYNC_ALL, > > > > + .sync_mode = WB_SYNC_NONE, > > > > .nr_pages = LONG_MAX, > > > > .range_cyclic = 0, > > > > }; > > > > @@ -236,6 +236,13 @@ static void bdi_sync_writeback(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, > > > > > > > > bdi_queue_work(bdi, &work); > > > > bdi_wait_on_work_clear(&work); > > > > + > > > > + args.sync_mode = WB_SYNC_ALL; > > > > + args.nr_pages = LONG_MAX; > > > > + > > > > + work.state = WS_USED | WS_ONSTACK; > > > > + bdi_queue_work(bdi, &work); > > > > + bdi_wait_on_work_clear(&work); > > > > } > > > > > > Those LONG_MAX's are a worry. What prevents a very long > > > almost-livelock from occurring if userspace is concurrently dirtying > > > pagecache at a high rate? > > > > Not sure whether Chris' system is back up again, but I discussed this > > with him on irc. Since the WB_SYNC_ALL writeback should be queued behind > > the WB_SYNC_NONE that the non-wait sync already issued, not sure why > > this patch makes a difference. It's definitely not the right approach. > > > > I wasn't referring to this patch actually. The code as it stands in > Linus's tree right now attempts to write back up to 2^63 pages...
I agree, it could make the fs sync take a looong time. This is not a new issue, though.
-- Jens Axboe
| |