Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758602AbXI0Ur6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:47:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754582AbXI0Urt (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:47:49 -0400 Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:49179 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753477AbXI0Urs (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Sep 2007 16:47:48 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 13:47:26 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Fengguang Wu Cc: nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au, hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp, galak@kernel.crashing.org, zaitcev@redhat.com, greg@kroah.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: remove unnecessary wait in throttle_vm_writeout() Message-Id: <20070927134726.ac39b55f.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <390857819.00313@ustc.edu.cn> References: <390857819.00313@ustc.edu.cn> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 2.2.4 (GTK+ 2.8.20; i486-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2758 Lines: 75 On Thu, 27 Sep 2007 09:50:16 +0800 Fengguang Wu wrote: > We don't want to introduce pointless delays in throttle_vm_writeout() > when the writeback limits are not yet exceeded, do we? > > Cc: Nick Piggin > Cc: OGAWA Hirofumi > Cc: Kumar Gala > Cc: Pete Zaitcev > Cc: Greg KH > Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu > --- > mm/page-writeback.c | 18 ++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > --- linux-2.6.23-rc8-mm1.orig/mm/page-writeback.c > +++ linux-2.6.23-rc8-mm1/mm/page-writeback.c > @@ -507,16 +507,6 @@ void throttle_vm_writeout(gfp_t gfp_mask > long background_thresh; > long dirty_thresh; > > - if ((gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) != (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) { > - /* > - * The caller might hold locks which can prevent IO completion > - * or progress in the filesystem. So we cannot just sit here > - * waiting for IO to complete. > - */ > - congestion_wait(WRITE, HZ/10); > - return; > - } > - > for ( ; ; ) { > get_dirty_limits(&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh, NULL, NULL); > > @@ -530,6 +520,14 @@ void throttle_vm_writeout(gfp_t gfp_mask > global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK) <= dirty_thresh) > break; > congestion_wait(WRITE, HZ/10); > + > + /* > + * The caller might hold locks which can prevent IO completion > + * or progress in the filesystem. So we cannot just sit here > + * waiting for IO to complete. > + */ > + if ((gfp_mask & (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) != (__GFP_FS|__GFP_IO)) > + break; > } > } > This is a pretty major bugfix. GFP_NOIO and GFP_NOFS callers should have been spending really large amounts of time stuck in that sleep. I wonder why nobody noticed this happening. Either a) it turns out that kswapd is doing a good job and such callers don't do direct reclaim much or b) nobody is doing any in-depth kernel instrumentation. Now, how _would_ one notice this problem? We don't have very good tools, really. Booting with "profile=sleep" and looking at the profile data would be one way. Repeatedly doing sysrq-T is another. Perhaps the new lockstat-via-lockdep code would allow this to be observed in some fashion, dunno. Anyway, this patch has the potential to significantly alter the dynamics of the VM behaviour under particular workloads. It might turn up other stuff... - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/