User: Password:
|
|
Subscribe / Log in / New account

Re: [PATCH, RFC] Don't do page stablization if !CONFIG_BLKDEV_INTEGRITY

From:  Boaz Harrosh <bharrosh-AT-panasas.com>
To:  Chris Mason <chris.mason-AT-oracle.com>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso-AT-mit.edu>, Zach Brown <zab-AT-zabbo.net>, Eric Sandeen <sandeen-AT-redhat.com>, <linux-fsdevel-AT-vger.kernel.org>, <linux-ext4-AT-vger.kernel.org>
Subject:  Re: [PATCH, RFC] Don't do page stablization if !CONFIG_BLKDEV_INTEGRITY
Date:  Thu, 8 Mar 2012 12:20:26 -0800
Message-ID:  <4F59148A.4070001@panasas.com>
Archive-link:  Article

On 03/08/2012 10:09 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> 
> But, why are we writeback for a second or more?  Aren't there other
> parts of this we would want to fix as well?
> 
> I'm not against only turning on stable pages when they are needed, but
> the code that isn't the default tends to be somewhat less used.  So it
> does increase testing burden when we do want stable pages, and it tends
> to make for awkward bugs that are hard to reproduce because someone
> neglects to mention it.
> 
> IMHO it's much more important to nail down the 2 second writeback
> latency. That's not good.
> 

I think I understand this one. It's do to the sync nature introduced
by page_waiting in mkwrite.

The system is loaded everything is somewhat 2 second or more in a lag.
The 2 sec (or more) comes from the max-dirty-limit/disk-speed so any
IO you'll submit will probably be on stable disk 2 sec later. (In theory,
any power fail will loose all dirty pages which is in our case
max-dirty-limit)

Now usually that's fine because everything is queued and waits a bit
evenly distributed and you wait, theoretically, only the rate of your
IO. But here, all of a sudden, you are not allowed to be queued and you
are waiting for the head of queue to be actually done, and the app is
just frozen.

Actually now when I think of it the pages were already submitted for
them to be waited on. So the 2-sec is the depth of the block+scsi+target
queues. I guess they can be pretty deep.

I have a theory of how we can fix that 2-sec wait, by avoiding writeback of
the last n pages of an inode who's mtime is less then 2-sec. This would
solve any sequential writer wait penalty, which is Ted's case

Thanks
Boaz
--
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



(Log in to post comments)


Copyright © 2012, Eklektix, Inc.
Comments and public postings are copyrighted by their creators.
Linux is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds