On Nov 29, 2007 5:32 PM, Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]: > > On Nov 28, 2007 4:34 PM, Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Could you demonstrate the situation? Or if I guess it right, could it > > > be fixed by the following patch?
Feng I am sorry to have been mistaken but I reran my tests and I am now finding that the patch you gave me is NOT fixing the problem. The patch I refer to is the one you posted on this thread that adds a requeue_io in __sync_single_inode. I tarred up my test code. It is still in very rough shape but it can reproduce the issue. You can find it here: http://neverthere.org/mhr/wb/wb-test.tar.bz2 Just make the test and run it with the args "-duration 0:5:0 -starvation". You must be root so it can set some sysctl values. > One major concern could be whether a continuous writer dirting pages > at the 'right' pace will generate a steady flow of write I/Os which are > _tiny_hence_inefficient_. > > So it's not a problem in *theory* :-) > > > I will post this change for 2.6.24 and list Feng as author. If that's > > ok with Feng. I am going to try to track down what is up in 2.6.24 and see if I can find a less dramatic fix than my tree patch for the short term. If you get a chance to reproduce the problem with my test on your patch that would rock. I still would like to see my full patch accepted into 2.6.25. A patch should be arriving shortly that will incorporate my larger patch and Qi Yong's fix for skip-writing-data-pages-when-inode-is-under-i_sync. http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linux/kernel/849493 As always thanks for your patience, mrubin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/