lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] vmscan: remove wait_on_page_writeback() from pageout()
    On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 04:32:01PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
    > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 05:59:55PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
    > > > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 06:43:41PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
    > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:46:54PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
    > > > > > > > The wait_on_page_writeback() call inside pageout() is virtually dead code.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > shrink_inactive_list()
    > > > > > > > shrink_page_list(PAGEOUT_IO_ASYNC)
    > > > > > > > pageout(PAGEOUT_IO_ASYNC)
    > > > > > > > shrink_page_list(PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC)
    > > > > > > > pageout(PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC)
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > Because shrink_page_list/pageout(PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC) is always called after
    > > > > > > > a preceding shrink_page_list/pageout(PAGEOUT_IO_ASYNC), the first
    > > > > > > > pageout(ASYNC) converts dirty pages into writeback pages, the second
    > > > > > > > shrink_page_list(SYNC) waits on the clean of writeback pages before
    > > > > > > > calling pageout(SYNC). The second shrink_page_list(SYNC) can hardly run
    > > > > > > > into dirty pages for pageout(SYNC) unless in some race conditions.
    > > > > > > >
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > It's possible for the second call to run into dirty pages as there is a
    > > > > > > congestion_wait() call between the first shrink_page_list() call and the
    > > > > > > second. That's a big window.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > > And the wait page-by-page behavior of pageout(SYNC) will lead to very
    > > > > > > > long stall time if running into some range of dirty pages.
    > > > > > >
    > > > > > > True, but this is also lumpy reclaim which is depending on a contiguous
    > > > > > > range of pages. It's better for it to wait on the selected range of pages
    > > > > > > which is known to contain at least one old page than excessively scan and
    > > > > > > reclaim newer pages.
    > > > > >
    > > > > > Today, I was successful to reproduce the Andres's issue. and I disagree this
    > > > > > opinion.
    > > > >
    > > > > Is Andres's issue not covered by the patch "vmscan: raise the bar to
    > > > > PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC stalls" because wait_on_page_writeback() was the
    > > > > main problem?
    > > >
    > > > Well, "vmscan: raise the bar to PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC stalls" is completely bandaid and
    > >
    > > No joking. The (DEF_PRIORITY-2) is obviously too permissive and shall be fixed.
    > >
    > > > much IO under slow USB flash memory device still cause such problem even if the patch is applied.
    > >
    > > As for this patch, raising the bar to PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC reduces both
    > > calls to congestion_wait() and wait_on_page_writeback(). So it
    > > absolutely helps by itself.
    > >
    > > > But removing wait_on_page_writeback() doesn't solve the issue perfectly because current
    > > > lumpy reclaim have multiple sick. again, I'm writing explaining mail.....
    > >
    > > Let's submit the two known working fixes first?
    >
    > Definitely, I can't oppose obvious test result (by another your mail) :-)
    >
    > OK, should go!

    Great. Shall I go first? My changelog has more background :)

    Thanks,
    Fengguang


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-08-01 10:39    [W:0.032 / U:31.216 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site