On Tue, 2008-08-05 at 13:51 +0900, Hisashi Hifumi wrote:
> >> >
> >> > diff -Nrup linux-2.6.27-rc1.org/fs/jbd/transaction.c
> >linux-2.6.27-rc1/fs/jbd/transaction.c
> >> > --- linux-2.6.27-rc1.org/fs/jbd/transaction.c 2008-07-29
> >19:28:47.000000000 +0900
> >> > +++ linux-2.6.27-rc1/fs/jbd/transaction.c 2008-07-29 20:40:12.000000000 +0900
> >> > @@ -1764,6 +1764,12 @@ int journal_try_to_free_buffers(journal_
> >> > */
> >> > if (ret == 0 && (gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT) && (gfp_mask & __GFP_FS)) {
> >> > journal_wait_for_transaction_sync_data(journal);
> >> > +
> >> > + bh = head;
> >> > + do {
> >> > + while (atomic_read(&bh->b_count))
> >> > + schedule();
> >> > + } while ((bh = bh->b_this_page) != head);
> >> > ret = try_to_free_buffers(page);
> >> > }
> >>
> >> The loop is problematic. If the scheduler decides to keep running this
> >> task then we have a busy loop. If this task has realtime policy then
> >> it might even lock up the kernel.
> >>
> >
> >ocfs2 calls journal_try_to_free_buffers too, looping on b_count might
> >not be the best idea there either.
> >
> >This code gets called from releasepage, which is used other places than
> >the O_DIRECT invalidation paths, I'd be worried about performance
> >problems here.
> >
>
> try_to_release_page has gfp_mask parameter. So when try_to_releasepage
> is called from performance sensitive part, gfp_mask should not be set.
> b_count check loop is inside of (gfp_mask & __GFP_WAIT) && (gfp_mask & __GFP_FS) check.
Looks like try_to_free_pages will go into releasepage with wait & fs
both set. This kind of change would make me very nervous.
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
