lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Fix mapping->writeback_index to point to the last written page
On Thu 03-03-11 21:31:19, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 10:26:19AM +0800, Jun'ichi Nomura wrote:
> > flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899962 + 8
> > flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899970 + 8
> > flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899978 + 8
> > flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899986 + 8
> > flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899994 + 8
> ==> > kworker/0:1-11 4606: block_rq_issue: 8,0 W 0 () 94899962 + 40
> > >> flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898554 + 8
> ==> > >> flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_rq_issue: 8,0 W 0 () 94898554 + 8
>
> I'd expect the wrapped around 94898554+8 to be merged with 94899962+8.
How could they be merged? They are not continguous...

> Why kworker/0:1-11 is submitting the request early? And the second
> request is submitted by flush-8:0-2743.
I'm not sure about that either - but I think that kworker is submitting
the work when unplug happens while flush ends up doing it when the queue is
alredy unplugged.

> > The 1st writeback ended at block 94898562. (94898554+8)
> > The 2nd writeback started there.
> > However, since the last page at the 1st writeback was just redirtied,
> > the 2nd writeback looped back to block 94898554 after sequentially
> > submitting blocks from 94898562 to 94900001.
> >
> > 1 extra seek which could be avoided.
> > I haven't seen fatal problem with the latest kernel, though.
> >
> > With older kernels (before 2.6.29, without commit 31a12666),
> > kupdate leaves the dirty pages like spots until the application wraps
> > around the ring. (It could take hours to days.)
> > That led me to this code.
> >
> > > But as I'm thinking about it, it wouldn't harm our original aim to do
> > > what you propose and it can help this relatively common case. So I think
> > > it's a good idea. Fengguang, what do you think?
>
> I see no problem too.
>
> Tested-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
OK, I'll update the changelog to reflect our discussion and post the
patch to Andrew for inclusion.

Honza


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-03 15:11    [W:0.056 / U:0.444 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site