xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: writeout stalls in current -git

To: "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: writeout stalls in current -git
From: "Torsten Kaiser" <just.for.lkml@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2007 21:26:05 +0100
Cc: "David Chinner" <dgc@xxxxxxx>, "Fengguang Wu" <wfg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Maxim Levitsky" <maximlevitsky@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Andrew Morton" <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=aSteImI9UbqzHyP5g7FCeQ+QCyP8T0EWeHKKbofjW0o=; b=S7gDtLwRUiE5Ovdf8ur4fxwRnoaOXK2sVwA7E6OUz4ya4PK2by4zM+QHiMD9mHqPkz1Efzq8LL0dVaC3m9nRfYT0tYScklfxXCCRNdvnlmmu1+JbkLoPkm55cQP2zRLLaTmunT9GLIZWWaHJOyEp3qti/rRHNfGlhE7Ilm2147E=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=QRbL0zT95BKKQ+R/H0hZFxCjLgIYnr0gnPQaQ3b0R5Py/dP7MltHWw118p4ZP2lls6Em6I34ZooZDS6VGmuPG+n8+r+Y1lnl53ncf0FZorpLCHGSJBxP+KoDzH3VqV7FjhB9n2nBppye+f2yZgLDHHLdT7xiMENqLPpeLDHRydM=
In-reply-to: <1194375682.6289.88.camel@twins>
References: <393903856.06449@ustc.edu.cn> <E1InmAI-0003ME-2i@localhost> <1193998532.27652.343.camel@twins> <64bb37e0711021222q7d12c825mc62d433c4fe19e8@mail.gmail.com> <20071102204258.GR995458@sgi.com> <64bb37e0711040319l5de285c3xea64474540a51b6e@mail.gmail.com> <20071105014510.GU66820511@sgi.com> <64bb37e0711051027v49869699s9593ea54713b15ff@mail.gmail.com> <20071106042527.GT995458@sgi.com> <1194375682.6289.88.camel@twins>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On 11/6/07, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 15:25 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
>
> > I'm struggling to understand what possible changed in XFS or writeback that
> > would lead to stalls like this, esp. as you appear to be removing files when
> > the stalls occur.
>
> Just a crazy idea,..
>
> Could there be a set_page_dirty() that doesn't have
> balance_dirty_pages() call near? For example modifying meta data in
> unlink?
>
> Such a situation could lead to an excess of dirty pages and the next
> call to balance_dirty_pages() would appear to stall, as it would
> desperately try to get below the limit again.

Only if accounting of the dirty pages is also broken.
In the unmerge testcase I see most of the time only <200kb of dirty
data in /proc/meminfo.

The system has 4Gb of RAM so I'm not sure if it should ever be valid
to stall even the emerge/install testcase.

Torsten

Now building a kernel with the skipped-pages-accounting-patch reverted...


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>