Re: [PATCH 0/2] new API to allocate buffer-cache for superblock in non-movable area

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri 01-08-14 17:34:46, Joonsoo Kim wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 02:21:14PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Thu 31-07-14 09:37:15, Gioh Kim wrote:
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 2014-07-31 오전 9:03, Jan Kara 쓴 글:
> > > >On Thu 31-07-14 08:54:40, Gioh Kim wrote:
> > > >>2014-07-30 오후 7:11, Jan Kara 쓴 글:
> > > >>>On Wed 30-07-14 16:44:24, Gioh Kim wrote:
> > > >>>>2014-07-22 오후 6:38, Jan Kara 쓴 글:
> > > >>>>>On Tue 22-07-14 09:30:05, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > >>>>>>On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:18:47PM +0900, Gioh Kim wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>Hello,
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>This patch try to solve problem that a long-lasting page cache of
> > > >>>>>>>ext4 superblock disturbs page migration.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>I've been testing CMA feature on my ARM-based platform
> > > >>>>>>>and found some pages for page caches cannot be migrated.
> > > >>>>>>>Some of them are page caches of superblock of ext4 filesystem.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>Current ext4 reads superblock with sb_bread(). sb_bread() allocates page
> > > >>>>>>>from movable area. But the problem is that ext4 hold the page until
> > > >>>>>>>it is unmounted. If root filesystem is ext4 the page cannot be migrated forever.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>I introduce a new API for allocating page from non-movable area.
> > > >>>>>>>It is useful for ext4 and others that want to hold page cache for a long time.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>There's no word on why you can't teach ext4 to still migrate that page.
> > > >>>>>>For all I know it might be impossible, but at least mention why.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>I am very sorry for lacking of details.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>In ext4_fill_super() the buffer-head of superblock is stored in sbi->s_sbh.
> > > >>>>The page belongs to the buffer-head is allocated from movable area.
> > > >>>>To migrate the page the buffer-head should be released via brelse().
> > > >>>>But brelse() is not called until unmount.
> > > >>>   Hum, I don't see where in the code do we check buffer_head use count. Can
> > > >>>you please point me? Thanks.
> > > >>
> > > >>Filesystem code does not check buffer_head use count.  sb_bread() returns
> > > >>the buffer_head that is included in bh_lru and has non-zero use count.
> > > >>You can see the bh_lru code in buffer.c: __find_get_clock() and
> > > >>lookup_bh_lru().  bh_lru_install() inserts the buffer_head into the
> > > >>bh_lru().  It first calls get_bh() to increase the use count and insert
> > > >>bh into the lru array.
> > > >>
> > > >>The buffer_head use count is non-zero until brelse() is called.
> > > >   So I probably didn't phrase the question precisely enough. What I was
> > > >asking about is where exactly *migration* code checks buffer use count?
> > > >Because as I'm looking at buffer_migrate_page() we lock the buffers on a
> > > >migrated page but we don't look at buffer use counts... So it seems to me
> > > >that migration of a page with buffers should succeed even if buffer head
> > > >has an elevated use count. Now I think that it *should* check the buffer
> > > >use counts (it is dangerous to migrate buffers someone holds reference to)
> > > >but I just cannot find that place. Or does CMA use some other migration
> > > >function for buffer pages than buffer_migrate_page()?
> > > 
> > > CMA allocation function is cma_alloc().
> > > Function flow is alloc_contig_range() -> __alloc_contig_migrate_range() -> migrate_pages -> unmap_and_move
> > > -> __unmap_and_move -> try_to_free_buffers -> drop_buffers -> buffer_busy.
> > > 
> > > The buffer_busy() is checking b_count.
> > > If buffer is busy buffer-cache cannot be removed.
> > > So the page that includes buffer_head and the page that is refered by
> > > buffer_head are not movable.
> > > 
> > > Is this what you need?
> >   Yes, this is what I was asking about. Thanks! But as I'm looking into
> > __unmap_and_move() it calls try_to_free_buffers() only if page->mapping ==
> > NULL. As the comment before that test states, this can happen only for swap
> > cache (not our case) or for pagecache pages that were truncated and not yet
> > fully cleaned up. But superblock page cannot really be truncated. So I
> > somewhat doubt you can hit the above path for a page holding superblock...
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Although page->mapping != NULL, mapping->a_ops->migratepage could be
> NULL. This is the case of block_device. See def_blk_aops in
> fs/block_dev.c. In this case, fallback_migrate_page() is called and
> then try_to_release_page() and try_to_free_buffers() would be called.
  Aaah, right! Finally I understand what happens and why I couldn't see
buffer_migrate_page() being called for blkdev buffers. I didn't realize
blkdev mappings end up with NULL ->migratepage callback. Thanks a lot for
clearing this up.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux