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?
next prev parent 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