mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>
To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] loop: Limit the number of requests in the bio list
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2012 12:52:19 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <x49ipaukud8.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1348767205-17230-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> (Lukas Czerner's message of "Thu, 27 Sep 2012 13:33:25 -0400")

Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com> writes:

> Currently there is not limitation of number of requests in the loop bio
> list. This can lead into some nasty situations when the caller spawns
> tons of bio requests taking huge amount of memory. This is even more
> obvious with discard where blkdev_issue_discard() will submit all bios
> for the range and wait for them to finish afterwards. On really big loop
> devices this can lead to OOM situation as reported by Dave Chinner.
>
> With this patch we will wait in loop_make_request() if the number of
> bios in the loop bio list would exceed 'nr_requests' number of requests.
> We'll wake up the process as we process the bios form the list.

I think you might want to do something similar to what is done for
request_queues by implementing a congestion on and off threshold.  As
Jens writes in this commit (predating the conversion to git):

Author: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
Date:   Wed Nov 3 15:47:37 2004 -0800

    [PATCH] queue congestion threshold hysteresis
    
    We need to open the gap between congestion on/off a little bit, or
    we risk burning many cycles continually putting processes on a wait
    queue only to wake them up again immediately. This was observed with
    CFQ at least, which showed way excessive sys time.
    
    Patch is from Arjan.
    
    Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
    Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>

If you feel this isn't necessary, then I think you at least need to
justify it with testing.  Perhaps Jens can shed some light on the exact
workload that triggered the pathological behaviour.

Cheers,
Jeff

  reply	other threads:[~2012-10-01 16:52 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-09-27 17:33 Lukas Czerner
2012-10-01 16:52 ` Jeff Moyer [this message]
2012-10-02  8:52   ` Lukáš Czerner
2012-10-02 19:59     ` Dave Chinner
2012-10-03 14:30       ` Jeff Moyer
2012-10-03 15:01         ` Lukáš Czerner
2012-10-03 15:05           ` Jeff Moyer

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=x49ipaukud8.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com \
    --to=jmoyer@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
    --cc=lczerner@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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®