mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au>
Cc: miquels@cistron.nl, axboe@suse.de, linux-lvm@sistina.com,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, thornber@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 18:32:18 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040219183218.2b3c4706.akpm@osdl.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <40356599.3080001@cyberone.com.au>

Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> >Nick Piggin <piggin@cyberone.com.au> wrote:
> >
> >>Even with this patch, it might still be a good idea to allow
> >>pdflush to disregard the limits...
> >>
> >
> >Has it been confirmed that pdflush is blocking in get_request_wait()?  I
> >guess that can happen very occasionally because we don't bother with any
> >locking around there but if it's happening a lot then something is bust.
> >
> >
> 
> Miquel's analysis is pretty plausible, but I'm not sure if
> he's confirmed it or not, Miquel? Even if it isn't happening
> a lot, and something isn't bust it might be a good idea to
> do this.

Seems OK from a quick check.  pdflush will block in get_request_wait()
occasionally, but not at all often.  Perhaps we could move the
write_congested test into the mpage_writepages() inner loop but it hardly
seems worth the risk.

Maybe things are different on Miquel's clockwork controller.



 drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c |    2 ++
 fs/fs-writeback.c         |    2 ++
 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff -puN drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c~pdflush-blockage-check drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c
--- 25/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c~pdflush-blockage-check	2004-02-19 18:16:33.000000000 -0800
+++ 25-akpm/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c	2004-02-19 18:16:33.000000000 -0800
@@ -1651,6 +1651,8 @@ static struct request *get_request_wait(
 		if (!rq) {
 			struct io_context *ioc;
 
+			WARN_ON(current_is_pdflush());
+
 			io_schedule();
 
 			/*
diff -puN fs/fs-writeback.c~pdflush-blockage-check fs/fs-writeback.c
--- 25/fs/fs-writeback.c~pdflush-blockage-check	2004-02-19 18:22:25.000000000 -0800
+++ 25-akpm/fs/fs-writeback.c	2004-02-19 18:22:43.000000000 -0800
@@ -279,6 +279,8 @@ sync_sb_inodes(struct super_block *sb, s
 		}
 
 		if (wbc->nonblocking && bdi_write_congested(bdi)) {
+			if (current_is_pdflush())
+				printk("saved pdflush\n");
 			wbc->encountered_congestion = 1;
 			if (sb != blockdev_superblock)
 				break;		/* Skip a congested fs */

_


  reply	other threads:[~2004-02-20  2:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20040216131609.GA21974@cistron.nl>
     [not found] ` <20040216133047.GA9330@suse.de>
     [not found]   ` <20040217145716.GE30438@traveler.cistron.net>
2004-02-18 23:52     ` IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  1:24       ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19  1:52         ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  2:01           ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19  1:26       ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-19  2:11         ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19  2:26           ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-19 10:15             ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 10:19               ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-19 20:59                 ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-19 22:52                   ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 23:53                     ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-20  0:15                       ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-20  1:12                       ` [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests) Nick Piggin
2004-02-20  1:26                         ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-20  1:40                           ` Nick Piggin
2004-02-20  2:32                             ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2004-02-20 14:40                               ` [PATCH] bdi_congestion_funp (was: Re: [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests)) Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-20 14:57                                 ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-20 14:59                                 ` Joe Thornber
2004-02-20 15:00                                   ` Jens Axboe
2004-02-22 14:02                                     ` Miquel van Smoorenburg
2004-02-22 19:55                                       ` Andrew Morton
2004-02-20  1:45                         ` [PATCH] per process request limits (was Re: IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests) Nick Piggin
2004-02-19  2:51           ` IO scheduler, queue depth, nr_requests Nick Piggin
2004-02-19 10:21             ` Jens Axboe

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20040219183218.2b3c4706.akpm@osdl.org \
    --to=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=axboe@suse.de \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-lvm@sistina.com \
    --cc=miquels@cistron.nl \
    --cc=piggin@cyberone.com.au \
    --cc=thornber@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®