Re: [PATCH 3/5] writeback: fix dirtied pages accounting onsub-page writes

[Jan Kara]

On Tue 22-11-11 20:30:01, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > @@ -1743,6 +1738,8 @@ void account_page_dirtied(struct page *p
> > >  		__inc_bdi_stat(mapping->backing_dev_info, BDI_DIRTIED);
> > >  		task_dirty_inc(current);
> > >  		task_io_account_write(PAGE_CACHE_SIZE);
> > > +		current->nr_dirtied++;
> > > +		__get_cpu_var(bdp_ratelimits)++;
> >   I think you need preempt_disable() and preempt_enable() pair around
> > __get_cpu_var(). Otherwise a process could get rescheduled in the middle of
> > read-modify-write cycle...
> 
> Hmm, I'm not worried about it at all, because bdp_ratelimits don't
> need to be accurate. In normal cases it won't even trigger one single
> call to balance_dirty_pages().
  I agree regarding the accuracy. But the CPU can change when the process
is scheduled again. So you could modify counter of a CPU you are not
running on. And that can cause bad things...

> btw, account_page_dirtied() is called inside spinlock, will it be
> sufficient?
  Currently it is not enough in real-time kernels and when sleeping
spinlocks work gets merged it won't be enough even in standard kernels...
And in kernels where spinlock means preemption is disabled
preempt_enable/disable will be almost for free...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/