On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 06:42:11AM +0800, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 09:57:08PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > Explicitly update .dirtied_when on synced inodes, so that they are no
> > longer considered for writeback in the next round.
> >
> > We'll do more aggressive "keep writeback as long as we wrote something"
> > logic in wb_writeback(). The "use LONG_MAX .nr_to_write" trick in commit
> > b9543dac5bbc ("writeback: avoid livelocking WB_SYNC_ALL writeback") will
> > no longer be enough to stop sync livelock.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/fs-writeback.c | 9 +++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
> >
> > ext3/ext4 are working fine now, however tests show that XFS may still
> > livelock inside the XFS routines:
> >
> > [ 3581.181253] sync D ffff8800b6ca15d8 4560 4403 4392 0x00000000
> > [ 3581.181734] ffff88006f775bc8 0000000000000046 ffff8800b6ca12b8 00000001b6ca1938
> > [ 3581.182411] ffff88006f774000 00000000001d2e40 00000000001d2e40 ffff8800b6ca1280
> > [ 3581.183088] 00000000001d2e40 ffff88006f775fd8 00000340af111ef2 00000000001d2e40
> > [ 3581.183765] Call Trace:
> > [ 3581.184008] [<ffffffff8109be73>] ? lock_release_holdtime+0xa3/0xab
> > [ 3581.184392] [<ffffffff8108cc0d>] ? prepare_to_wait+0x6c/0x79
> > [ 3581.184756] [<ffffffff8108cc0d>] ? prepare_to_wait+0x6c/0x79
> > [ 3581.185120] [<ffffffff812ed520>] xfs_ioend_wait+0x87/0x9f
> > [ 3581.185474] [<ffffffff8108c97a>] ? wake_up_bit+0x2a/0x2a
> > [ 3581.185827] [<ffffffff812f742a>] xfs_sync_inode_data+0x92/0x9d
> > [ 3581.186198] [<ffffffff812f76e2>] xfs_inode_ag_walk+0x1a5/0x287
> > [ 3581.186569] [<ffffffff812f779b>] ? xfs_inode_ag_walk+0x25e/0x287
> > [ 3581.186946] [<ffffffff812f7398>] ? xfs_sync_worker+0x69/0x69
> > [ 3581.187311] [<ffffffff812e2354>] ? xfs_perag_get+0x68/0xd0
> > [ 3581.187669] [<ffffffff81092175>] ? local_clock+0x41/0x5a
> > [ 3581.188020] [<ffffffff8109be73>] ? lock_release_holdtime+0xa3/0xab
> > [ 3581.188403] [<ffffffff812e22ec>] ? xfs_check_sizes+0x160/0x160
> > [ 3581.188773] [<ffffffff812e2354>] ? xfs_perag_get+0x68/0xd0
> > [ 3581.189130] [<ffffffff812e236c>] ? xfs_perag_get+0x80/0xd0
> > [ 3581.189488] [<ffffffff812e22ec>] ? xfs_check_sizes+0x160/0x160
> > [ 3581.189858] [<ffffffff812f7831>] ? xfs_inode_ag_iterator+0x6d/0x8f
> > [ 3581.190241] [<ffffffff812f7398>] ? xfs_sync_worker+0x69/0x69
> > [ 3581.190606] [<ffffffff812f780b>] xfs_inode_ag_iterator+0x47/0x8f
> > [ 3581.190982] [<ffffffff811611f5>] ? __sync_filesystem+0x7a/0x7a
> > [ 3581.191352] [<ffffffff812f7877>] xfs_sync_data+0x24/0x43
> > [ 3581.191703] [<ffffffff812f7911>] xfs_quiesce_data+0x2c/0x88
> > [ 3581.192065] [<ffffffff812f5556>] xfs_fs_sync_fs+0x21/0x48
> > [ 3581.192419] [<ffffffff811611e1>] __sync_filesystem+0x66/0x7a
> > [ 3581.192783] [<ffffffff8116120b>] sync_one_sb+0x16/0x18
> > [ 3581.193128] [<ffffffff8113e3e3>] iterate_supers+0x72/0xce
> > [ 3581.193482] [<ffffffff81161140>] sync_filesystems+0x20/0x22
> > [ 3581.193842] [<ffffffff8116127e>] sys_sync+0x21/0x33
> > [ 3581.194177] [<ffffffff819016c2>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> >
> > --- linux-next.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c 2011-05-10 09:50:07.000000000 +0800
> > +++ linux-next/fs/fs-writeback.c 2011-05-10 10:03:00.000000000 +0800
> > @@ -419,6 +419,15 @@ writeback_single_inode(struct inode *ino
> > spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> > inode->i_state &= ~I_SYNC;
> > if (!(inode->i_state & I_FREEING)) {
> > + /*
> > + * Sync livelock prevention. Each inode is tagged and synced in
> > + * one shot, so we can unconditionally update its dirty time to
> > + * prevent syncing it again. Note that time ordering of b_dirty
> > + * list will be kept because the following code either removes
> > + * the inode from b_dirty or calls redirty_tail().
> > + */
> > + if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL || wbc->tagged_sync)
> > + inode->dirtied_when = jiffies;
>
> Shouldn't this update only ocur if the inode is still dirty?
Yeah, that would be better even though the current form won't lead to
errors.
Let's add one more test (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY)?
(I was actually aware of the trade offs and didn't bother to add it..)
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
