On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 01:46:52PM +0100, richard kennedy wrote: > On Tue, 2007-10-02 at 10:00 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > --- > > mm/page-writeback.c | 5 +++++ > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > > > --- linux-2.6.22.orig/mm/page-writeback.c > > +++ linux-2.6.22/mm/page-writeback.c > > @@ -250,6 +250,11 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a > > pages_written += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write; > > if (pages_written >= write_chunk) > > break; /* We've done our duty */ > > + if (list_empty(&mapping->host->i_sb->s_dirty) && > > + list_empty(&mapping->host->i_sb->s_io) && > > + nr_reclaimable + global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK) <= > > + dirty_thresh + (1 << (20-PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT))) > > + break; > > } > > congestion_wait(WRITE, HZ/10); > > } > > I've been testing 2.6.23-rc9 + this patch all morning but have just seen > a lockup. As usual it happened just after a large file copy finished > and while nr_dirty is still large. I'm sorry to say I didn't have a > serial console running so I don't have an other info. I will try again > and see if I can capture some more data. > > I did notice that at the beginning of my tests the dirty blocks are > written back more quickly than usual > > nr_dirty count after the copy finished and then 60 seconds later :- > after copy +60 seconds > 73520 0 > 73533 0 > 68554 1 > > but after several iterations of my testcase & just before the lockup > 68560 57165 > 71974 62896 > > which is about the same as a unpatched kernel. Hi Richard, Thank you for the testing. However, my patch is kind of duplicate efforts. I was taking the 'do it if simple' attitude. I can continue to improve it if you really want it. Otherwise I'd recommend you to test the coming 2.6.24-rc1 or backport the -mm writeback patches back to 2.6.23 and test it there. Peter has did a good job on it. Fengguang _______________________________________________ linux-pm mailing list linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-pm
