Re: [PATCH 4/9] writeback: track if we're sleeping on progress in balance_dirty_pages()

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

 



On 04/13/2016 07:08 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 30-03-16 09:07:52, Jens Axboe wrote:
Note in the bdi_writeback structure if a task is currently being
limited in balance_dirty_pages(), waiting for writeback to
proceed.
...
diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
index 11ff8f758631..15e696bc5d14 100644
--- a/mm/page-writeback.c
+++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
@@ -1746,7 +1746,9 @@ pause:
  					  pause,
  					  start_time);
  		__set_current_state(TASK_KILLABLE);
+		wb->dirty_sleeping = 1;
  		io_schedule_timeout(pause);
+		wb->dirty_sleeping = 0;

Huh, but wb->dirty_sleeping is shared by all the processes in the system.
So this is seriously racy, isn't it? You rather need a counter for this to
work.

Sure, but it's not _that_ important. It's like wb->dirty_exceeded, we have an equally relaxed relationship.

I don't mind making it more solid, but I can't make it a counter without making it atomic. Which is why I left it as just a basic assignment. But I guess since we only fiddle with it when going to sleep, we can make it an atomic and not have to worry about the potential impact.

--
Jens Axboe

--
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