On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:43:15PM -0800, Michael Rubin wrote:
quoted text
> On Jan 17, 2008 8:56 PM, Fengguang Wu <wfg@mail.ustc.edu.cn> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 01:07:05PM -0800, Michael Rubin wrote:
> > Suppose we want to grant longer expiration window for temp files,
> > adding a new list named s_dirty_tmpfile would be a handy solution.
> 
> When you mean tmp do you mean files that eventually get written to

Yes, they are disk based and can be synced on.

quoted text
> disk? If not I would just use the WRITEBACK_NEVER. If so I am not sure
> if that feature is worth making a special case. It seems like the
> location based ideas may be more useful.

I'm not interested in WRITEBACK_NEVER or location based writeback
for now :-)

quoted text
> > > >         - refill s_io iif it is drained
> > > >           this prevents promotion of big/old files
> > >
> > > Once a big file gets its first do_writepages it is moved behind the
> > > other smaller files via i_flushed_when. And the same in reverse for
> > > big vs old.
> >
> > You mean i_flush_gen?
> 
> Yeah sorry. It was once called i_flush_when. (sheepish)
> 
> > No, sync_sb_inodes() will abort on every
> > MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES, and s_flush_gen will be updated accordingly.
> > Hence the sync will restart from big/old files.
> 
> If I understand you correctly I am not sure I agree. Here is what I
> think happens in the patch:
> 
> 1) pull big inode off of flush tree
> 2) sync big inode
> 3) Hit MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES
> 4) Re-insert big inode (without modifying the dirtied_when)
> 5) update the i_flush_gen on big inode and re-insert behind small
> inodes we have not synced yet.
> 
> In a subsequent sync_sb_inode we end up retrieving the small inode we
> had not serviced yet.

Yes, exactly. And then it will continue to sync the big one again.
It will never be able to move forward to the next dirtied_when before
exhausting the inodes in the current list(with the oldest dirtied_when).

quoted text
> > > >         - return from sync_sb_inodes() after one go of s_io
> > >
> > > I am not sure how this limit helps things out. Is this for superblock
> > > starvation? Can you elaborate?
> >
> > We should have a way to go to next superblock even if new dirty inodes
> > or pages are emerging fast in this superblock. Fill and drain s_io
> > only once and then abort helps.
> 
> Got it.
> 
> > s_io is a stable and bounded working set in one go of superblock.
> 
> Is this necessary with MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES? It feels like a double limit.

We need a limit and continuing scheme at each level. It was so hard to
sort them out, that I'm really reluctant to restart all the fuss again.

quoted text
> > Basically you make one list_head in each rbtree node.
> > That list_head is recycled cyclic, and is an analog to the old
> > fashioned s_dirty. We need to know 'where we are' and 'where it ends'.
> > So an extra indicator must be introduced - i_flush_gen. It's awkward.
> > We are simply repeating the aged list_heads' problem.
> 
> To me they both feel a little awkward. I feel like the original
> problem in 2.6.23 led to a lot of examination which is bringing new
> possibilities to light.
> 
> BTW the issue that started me on this whole path (starving large
> files) was still present in 2.6.23-rc8 but now looks fixed in
> 2.6.24-rc3.
> Still no idea about your changes in 2.6.24-rc6-mm1. I have given up
> trying to get that thing to boot.

Hehe, I guess the bug is still there in 2.6.24-rc3. But should be gone
in the latest patchset.

--
unsubscribe notice
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/