Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753176Ab2FMD4y (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:56:54 -0400 Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.129]:5804 "EHLO ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751986Ab2FMD4v (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:56:51 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ak4JACgO2E95LKXc/2dsb2JhbABFtAUEgS2BCIIYAQEEAScTHA8UBQsIAxUDLhQlAyETG4drBLlUFIsTSYVIA5Ugj32CcoFN Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:56:47 +1000 From: Dave Chinner To: Fengguang Wu Cc: Wanpeng Li , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Gavin Shan , Wanpeng Li Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: avoid race when update bandwidth Message-ID: <20120613035647.GU22848@dastard> References: <1339496803-2885-1-git-send-email-liwp.linux@gmail.com> <20120612112129.GA16639@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120612112129.GA16639@localhost> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1531 Lines: 40 On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 07:21:29PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 06:26:43PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote: > > From: Wanpeng Li > > That email address is no longer in use? > > > Since bdi->wb.list_lock is used to protect the b_* lists, > > so the flushers who call wb_writeback to writeback pages will > > stuck when bandwidth update policy holds this lock. In order > > to avoid this race we can introduce a new bandwidth_lock who > > is responsible for protecting bandwidth update policy. This is not a race condition - it is a lock contention condition. > This looks good to me. wb.list_lock could be contended and it's better > for bdi_update_bandwidth() to use a standalone and hardly contended > lock. I'm not sure it will be "hardly contended". That's a global lock, so now we'll end up with updates on different bdis contending and it's not uncommon to see a couple of thousand processes on large machines beating on balance_dirty_pages(). Putting a global scope lock around such a function doesn't seem like a good solution to me. Oh, and if you want to remove the dirty_lock from global_update_limit(), then replacing the lock with a cmpxchg loop will do it just fine.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- 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/