From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [ext3][kernels >= 2.6.20.7 at least] KDE going comatose when FS is under heavy write load (massive starvation) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:46:05 -0700 Message-ID: <20070816114605.5a233c7e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1177660767.6567.41.camel@Homer.simpson.net> <20070427013350.d0d7ac38.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <698310e10704270459t7663d39dp977cf055b8db9d2a@mail.gmail.com> <20070427193130.GD5967@schatzie.adilger.int> <20070427151837.f1439639.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <463A1E02.8020506@clusterfs.com> <20070503165428.855eb7d7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <463AD024.6060208@clusterfs.com> <20070503233804.9dace4a7.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <463AD948.9090103@clusterfs.com> <20070504001802.0e86e9dd.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <463AE32A.5000902@clusterfs.com> <20070504010212.ce6eca53.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <46C49556.4000409@clusterfs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" To: Alex Tomas Return-path: Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:42491 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757165AbXHPSqO (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:46:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46C49556.4000409@clusterfs.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:20:06 +0400 Alex Tomas wrote: > Andrew Morton wrote: > >>> But under this proposal, t_sync_datalist just gets removed: the new > >>> ordered-data mode _only_ need to do the sb->inode->page walk. So if I'm > >>> understanding you, the way in which we'd handle any such race is to make > >>> kjournald's writeback of the dirty pages block in lock_page(). Once it > >>> gets the page lock it can look to see if some other thread has mapped the > >>> page to disk. > >> if I'm right holding number of pages locked, then they won't be locked, but > >> writeback. of course kjournald can block on writeback as well, but how does > >> it find pages with *newly allocated* blocks only? > > > > I don't think we'd want kjournald to do that. Even if a page was dirtied > > by an overwrite, we'd want to write it back during commit, just from a > > quality-of-implementation point of view. If we were to leave these pages > > unwritten during commit then a post-recovery file could have a mix of > > up-to-five-second-old data and up-to-30-seconds-old data. > > trying to implement this I've got to think that there is one significant > difference between t_sync_datalist and sb->inode->page walk: t_sync_datalist > is per-transaction. IOW, it doesn't change once transaction is closed. in > contrast, nothing (currently) would prevent others to modify pages while > commit is in progress. That can happen at present - there's nothing to stop a process from modifying a page which is undergoing ordered-data commit-time writeout.