lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/17] [RFC] soft and dynamic dirty throttling limits
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:07:33AM +0800, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:17:16AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Wu, what's the state of this series? It looks like we'll need it
> > rather sooner than later - try to get at least the preparations in
> > ASAP would be really helpful.
>
> Not ready in it's current form. This load (creating millions of 1
> byte files in parallel):
>
> $ /usr/bin/time ./fs_mark -D 10000 -S0 -n 100000 -s 1 -L 63 \
> > -d /mnt/scratch/0 -d /mnt/scratch/1 \
> > -d /mnt/scratch/2 -d /mnt/scratch/3 \
> > -d /mnt/scratch/4 -d /mnt/scratch/5 \
> > -d /mnt/scratch/6 -d /mnt/scratch/7
>
> Locks up all the fs_mark processes spinning in traces like the
> following and no further progress is made when the inode cache
> fills memory.

Dave, thanks for the testing! I'll try to reproduce it and check
what's going on.

Thanks,
Fengguang

> [ 2601.452017] fs_mark R running task 0 2303 2235 0x00000008
> [ 2601.452017] ffff8801188f7878 ffffffff8103e2c9 ffff8801188f78a8 0000000000000000
> [ 2601.452017] 0000000000000002 ffff8801129e21c0 ffff880002fd44c0 0000000000000000
> [ 2601.452017] ffff8801188f78b8 ffffffff810a9a08 ffff8801188f78e8 ffffffff810a98e5
> [ 2601.452017] Call Trace:
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff81060edc>] ? kvm_clock_read+0x1c/0x20
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff8103e2c9>] ? sched_clock+0x9/0x10
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff810a98e5>] ? sched_clock_local+0x25/0x90
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff810b9e00>] ? __lock_acquire+0x330/0x14d0
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff810a9a94>] ? local_clock+0x34/0x80
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff81061cc8>] ? pvclock_clocksource_read+0x58/0xd0
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff81061cc8>] ? pvclock_clocksource_read+0x58/0xd0
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff81060edc>] ? kvm_clock_read+0x1c/0x20
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff8103e2c9>] ? sched_clock+0x9/0x10
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff810bb054>] ? lock_acquire+0xb4/0x140
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff8103e2c9>] ? sched_clock+0x9/0x10
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff810a98e5>] ? sched_clock_local+0x25/0x90
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff81698ea2>] ? prop_get_global+0x32/0x50
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff81699230>] ? prop_fraction_percpu+0x30/0xa0
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff8111af3b>] ? bdi_dirty_limit+0x9b/0xe0
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff8111bbd8>] ? balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr+0x178/0x580
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff81ad440b>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x2b/0x40
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff8117ccd5>] ? __mark_inode_dirty+0xc5/0x230
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff811114d5>] ? iov_iter_copy_from_user_atomic+0x95/0x170
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff811118fc>] ? generic_file_buffered_write+0x1cc/0x270
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff81492f2f>] ? xfs_file_aio_write+0x79f/0xaf0
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff81060edc>] ? kvm_clock_read+0x1c/0x20
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff81060edc>] ? kvm_clock_read+0x1c/0x20
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff8103e2c9>] ? sched_clock+0x9/0x10
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff810a98e5>] ? sched_clock_local+0x25/0x90
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff81157cca>] ? do_sync_write+0xda/0x120
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff8112e20c>] ? might_fault+0x5c/0xb0
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff81669f7f>] ? security_file_permission+0x1f/0x80
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff81157fb8>] ? vfs_write+0xc8/0x180
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff81158904>] ? sys_write+0x54/0x90
> [ 2601.452017] [<ffffffff81037072>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
> This is on an 8p/4GB RAM VM.
>
> FWIW, this one test now has a proven record of exposing writeback,
> VM and filesystem regressions, so I'd suggest that anyone doing any
> sort of work that affects writeback adds it to their test matrix....


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-10-13 05:27    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans