mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, agk@redhat.com, mbroz@redhat.com,
	chris@arachsys.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Memory management livelock
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2008 22:27:50 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200810032227.50892.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0810030729290.4875@hs20-bc2-1.build.redhat.com>

On Friday 03 October 2008 21:43, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 13:47:21 +1000 Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> 
wrote:
> > > > I expect there's no solution which avoids blocking the writers at
> > > > some stage.
> > >
> > > See my other email. Something roughly like this would do the trick
> > > (hey, it actually boots and runs and does fix the problem too).
> >
> > It needs exclusion to protect all those temp tags.  Is do_fsync()'s
> > i_mutex sufficient?  It's qute unobvious (and unmaintainable?) that all
> > the callers of this stuff are running under that lock.
>
> That filemap_fdatawrite and filemap_fdatawait in fsync() aren't really
> called under i_mutex (see do_fsync).
>
> So the possible solutions are:
>
> 1. Add jiffies when the page was diried and wroteback to struct page
> + no impact on locking and concurrency
> - increases the structure by 8 bytes

This one is not practical.


> 2. Stop the writers when the starvation happens (what I did)
> + doesn't do any locking if the livelock doesn't happen
> - locks writers when the livelock happens (I think it's not really serious
> --- because very few people complained about the livelock, very few people
> will see performance degradation from blocking the writers).

Maybe it is because not much actually does sequential writes to a massive
file or block device while trying to fsync it as well? I don't know. You
could still have cases where fsync takes much longer than expected but it
is still not long enough for a user to report it as a "livelock" bug.


> 3. Add another bit to radix tree (what Nick did)
> + doesn't ever block writers
> - unconditionally takes the lock on fsync path and serializates concurrent
> syncs/fsyncs. Probably low overhead too ... or I don't know, is there any
> possible situation when more processes execute sync() in parallel and user
> would see degradations if those syncs were serialized?


  reply	other threads:[~2008-10-03 12:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 67+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <20080911101616.GA24064@agk.fab.redhat.com>
2008-09-22 21:10 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-09-23  0:48   ` Andrew Morton
2008-09-23 22:34   ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-09-23 22:49     ` Andrew Morton
2008-09-23 23:11       ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-09-23 23:46         ` Andrew Morton
2008-09-24 18:50           ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-09-24 18:51           ` [PATCH 1/3] " Mikulas Patocka
2008-09-24 18:52           ` [PATCH 2/3] " Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-02  5:54             ` Andrew Morton
2008-10-05 22:11               ` RFC: one-bit mutexes (was: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Memory management livelock) Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-11 12:06                 ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-20 20:14                   ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-21  1:51                     ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-05 22:14               ` [PATCH 1/3] bit mutexes Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-05 22:14               ` [PATCH 2/3] Fix fsync livelock Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-05 22:33                 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-05 23:02                   ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-05 23:07                     ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-05 23:18                       ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-05 23:28                         ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-06  0:01                           ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-06  0:30                             ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-06  3:30                               ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-06  4:20                                 ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-06 13:00                                   ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-06 13:50                                     ` Arjan van de Ven
2008-10-06 20:44                                       ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-08 10:56                               ` Pavel Machek
2008-10-06  2:51                             ` Dave Chinner
2008-10-05 22:16               ` [PATCH 3/3] Fix fsync-vs-write misbehavior Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-09  1:12               ` [PATCH] documentation: explain memory barriers Randy Dunlap
2008-10-09  1:17                 ` Chris Snook
2008-10-09  1:31                   ` Andrew Morton
2008-10-09  5:51                     ` Chris Snook
2008-10-09  9:58                       ` Ben Hutchings
2008-10-09 21:27                         ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-09 17:29                       ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-09  1:50                 ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-10-09 17:35                   ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-09  6:52                     ` Valdis.Kletnieks
2008-09-24 18:53           ` [PATCH 3/3] Memory management livelock Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-03  2:32       ` [PATCH] " Nick Piggin
2008-10-03  2:40         ` Andrew Morton
2008-10-03  2:59           ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-03  3:14             ` Andrew Morton
2008-10-03  3:47               ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-03  3:56                 ` Andrew Morton
2008-10-03  4:07                   ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-03  4:17                     ` Andrew Morton
2008-10-03  4:29                       ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-03 11:43                   ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-03 12:27                     ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2008-10-03 13:53                       ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-03  2:54         ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-03 11:26           ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-03 12:31             ` Nick Piggin
2008-10-03 13:50               ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-03 14:50                 ` Alasdair G Kergon
2008-10-03 14:36               ` Alasdair G Kergon
2008-10-03 15:52           ` application syncing options (was Re: [PATCH] Memory management livelock) david
2008-10-06  0:04             ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-06  0:19               ` david
2008-10-06  3:42                 ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-07  3:37                   ` david
2008-10-07 15:44                     ` Mikulas Patocka
2008-10-07 17:16                       ` david

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=200810032227.50892.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
    --cc=agk@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=chris@arachsys.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbroz@redhat.com \
    --cc=mpatocka@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

Powered by JetHome