On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 02:16:17PM +0100, Damien Wyart wrote:
> Hello,
>
> > > > Ok, so it's not synchronous writes that we are doing - we're just
> > > > submitting bio's tagged as WRITE_SYNC to get the I/O issued quickly.
> > > > The "synchronous" nature appears to be coming from higher level
>
Hello,
> > > Ok, so it's not synchronous writes that we are doing - we're just
> > > submitting bio's tagged as WRITE_SYNC to get the I/O issued
> > > quickly. The "synchronous" nature appears to be coming from higher
> > > level locking when reclaiming inodes (on the flush lock). It
> > > appears
On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 09:10:47AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > What's missing is a definition which of them are formal tags that must
> > be explicitely given (look at point 13 in SubmittingPatches).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: and Reviewed-by: are the
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What's missing is a definition which of them are formal tags that must
> be explicitely given (look at point 13 in SubmittingPatches).
>
> Signed-off-by: and Reviewed-by: are the formal tags someone must have
> explicitely given and that correspond to so
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 08:15:06AM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> On 11/7/07, David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok, so it's not synchronous writes that we are doing - we're just
> > submitting bio's tagged as WRITE_SYNC to get the I/O issued quickly.
> > The "synchronous" nature appears
On 11/7/07, David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, so it's not synchronous writes that we are doing - we're just
> submitting bio's tagged as WRITE_SYNC to get the I/O issued quickly.
> The "synchronous" nature appears to be coming from higher level
> locking when reclaiming inodes (on the
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 10:31:14AM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:53:25PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > On 11/6/07, David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Rather than vmstat, can you use something like iostat to show how busy
> > > your
> > > disks are? i.e. a
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 10:53:25PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> On 11/6/07, David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Rather than vmstat, can you use something like iostat to show how busy your
> > disks are? i.e. are we seeing RMW cycles in the raid5 or some such issue.
>
> Both "vmstat 10"
On Tue, Nov 06, 2007 at 09:25:12AM -0700, Jonathan Corbet wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>
> > > Reviewed-by: Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > I would prefer Tested-by: :(
>
> This seems like as good an opportunity as any to toss my patch tags
> document out there one more time. I still think
On 11/6/07, Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --
> Subject: writeback: remove pages_skipped accounting in
> __block_write_full_page()
> From: Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> and me identified a writ
On 11/6/07, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 15:25 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
>
> > I'm struggling to understand what possible changed in XFS or writeback that
> > would lead to stalls like this, esp. as you appear to be removing files when
> > the stalls occur.
>
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 15:25 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> I'm struggling to understand what possible changed in XFS or writeback that
> would lead to stalls like this, esp. as you appear to be removing files when
> the stalls occur.
Just a crazy idea,..
Could there be a set_page_dirty() that do
> This seems like as good an opportunity as any to toss my patch tags
> document out there one more time. I still think it's a good idea to
> codify some sort of consensus on what these tags mean...
>
> jon
>
[snip]
> +By offering my Reviewed-by: tag, I state that:
> +
> + (a) I have carried out
Andrew wrote:
> > Reviewed-by: Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> I would prefer Tested-by: :(
This seems like as good an opportunity as any to toss my patch tags
document out there one more time. I still think it's a good idea to
codify some sort of consensus on what these tags mean...
jo
On Mon, 2007-11-05 at 15:57 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Subject: mm: speed up writeback ramp-up on clean systems
> > >
> > > We allow violation of bdi limits if there is a lot of room on the
> > > system. Once we hit half the total limit we start enforcing bdi limits
> > > and bdi ramp-up s
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 08:22:10PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> [ 547.20] mm/page-writeback.c 676 wb_kupdate: pdflush(285) 58858 >
> global 12829 72 0 wc __ tw 0 sk 0
> [ 550.48] mm/page-writeback.c 676 wb_kupdate: pdflush(285) 57834 >
> global 12017 62 0 wc __ tw 0 sk 0
> [ 552.7100
On 11/6/07, David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 07:27:16PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > On 11/5/07, David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Ok, so it's probably a side effect of the writeback changes.
> > >
> > > Attached are two patches (two because one wa
On Mon, Nov 05, 2007 at 07:27:16PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> On 11/5/07, David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok, so it's probably a side effect of the writeback changes.
> >
> > Attached are two patches (two because one was in a separate patchset as
> > a standalone change) that shoul
On Fri, 2 Nov 2007 18:33:29 +0800
Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 11:15:32AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 10:21 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> >
> > > Interestingly, no background_writeout() appears, but only
> > > balance_dirty_pages() an
On 11/5/07, David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, so it's probably a side effect of the writeback changes.
>
> Attached are two patches (two because one was in a separate patchset as
> a standalone change) that should prevent async writeback from blocking
> on locked inode cluster buffers.
On 11/5/07, David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 12:19:19PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > I can now confirm, that I see this also with the current
> > mainline-git-version
> > I used 2.6.24-rc1-git-b4f555081fdd27d13e6ff39d455d5aefae9d2c0c
> > plus the fix for the s
On Sun, Nov 04, 2007 at 12:19:19PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> On 11/2/07, David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > That's stalled waiting on the inode cluster buffer lock. That implies
> > that the inode lcuser is already being written out and the inode has
> > been redirtied during writeou
On 11/2/07, David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That's stalled waiting on the inode cluster buffer lock. That implies
> that the inode lcuser is already being written out and the inode has
> been redirtied during writeout.
>
> Does the kernel you are testing have the "flush inodes in ascendi
On 11/2/07, David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 08:22:10PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > [ 630.00] SysRq : Emergency Sync
> > [ 630.12] Emergency Sync complete
> > [ 632.85] SysRq : Show Blocked State
> > [ 632.85] task
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 08:22:10PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> [ 630.00] SysRq : Emergency Sync
> [ 630.12] Emergency Sync complete
> [ 632.85] SysRq : Show Blocked State
> [ 632.85] taskPC stack pid father
> [ 632.85] pdflush D 8100
On 11/2/07, Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 10:21 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>
> > Interestingly, no background_writeout() appears, but only
> > balance_dirty_pages() and wb_kupdate. Obviously wb_kupdate won't
> > block the process.
>
> Yeah, the background thresh
On 11/2/07, Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I guess the new debug printks will provide more hints on it.
The "throttle_vm_writeout" did not trigger for my new workload.
Except one (the first) "balance_dirty_pages" came from line 445, the
newly added.
But I found an other workload that l
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 11:15:32AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 10:21 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
>
> > Interestingly, no background_writeout() appears, but only
> > balance_dirty_pages() and wb_kupdate. Obviously wb_kupdate won't
> > block the process.
>
> Yeah, the backg
On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 10:21 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> Interestingly, no background_writeout() appears, but only
> balance_dirty_pages() and wb_kupdate. Obviously wb_kupdate won't
> block the process.
Yeah, the background threshold is not (yet) scaled. So it can happen
that the bdi_dirty limit
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 08:42:05AM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> The Subject is still missleading, I'm using 2.6.23-mm1.
>
> On 11/2/07, Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:20:51PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > > On 11/1/07, Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> w
On 11/2/07, Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 08:00:10PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > On 11/1/07, Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On 11/1/07, Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Thank you. Maybe we can start by the applied debug patch
The Subject is still missleading, I'm using 2.6.23-mm1.
On 11/2/07, Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:20:51PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > On 11/1/07, Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:22:10PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 08:00:10PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> On 11/1/07, Torsten Kaiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 11/1/07, Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Thank you. Maybe we can start by the applied debug patch :-)
> >
> > Will applied it and try to recreate this.
>
> P
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 07:20:51PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> On 11/1/07, Fengguang Wu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:22:10PM +0100, Torsten Kaiser wrote:
> > > Since 2.6.23-mm1 I also experience strange hangs during heavy writeouts.
> > > Each time I noticed this I w
34 matches
Mail list logo
