On 11/6/07, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
quoted text
> 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...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html