Re: Bug in kernel 2.6.31, Slow wb_kupdate writeout

From: Wu Fengguang
Date: Wed Jul 29 2009 - 22:09:46 EST


On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 09:28:07AM +0800, Martin Bligh wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Martin Bligh<mbligh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > BTW, can you explain this code at the bottom of generic_sync_sb_inodes
> > for me?
> >
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âif (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) {
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âwbc->more_io = 1;
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âbreak;
> > Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â}
> >
> > I don't understand why we are setting more_io here? AFAICS, more_io
> > means there's more stuff to write ... I would think we'd set this if
> > nr_to_write was > 0 ?
> >
> > Or just have the section below brought up above this
> > break check and do:
> >
> > if (!list_empty(&sb->s_more_io) || !list_empty(&sb->s_io))
> > Â Â Â Âwbc->more_io = 1;
> >
> > Am I just misunderstanding the intent of more_io ?
>
> I am thinking along the lines of:

On closer looks I found this line:

if (inode_dirtied_after(inode, start))
break;

In this case "list_empty(&sb->s_io)" is not a good criteria:
here we are breaking away for some other reasons, and shall
not touch wbc.more_io.

So let's stick with the current code?

Thanks,
Fengguang

> @@ -638,13 +609,11 @@ sync_sb_inodes(struct super_block *sb, s
> iput(inode);
> cond_resched();
> spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> - if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0) {
> - wbc->more_io = 1;
> + if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0)
> break;
> - }
> - if (!list_empty(&sb->s_more_io))
> - wbc->more_io = 1;
> }
> + if (!list_empty(&sb->s_more_io) || !list_empty(&sb->s_io)
> + wbc->more_io = 1;
> return; /* Leave any unwritten inodes on s_io */
> }
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/