On Sat, 30 Dec 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On 30 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > There are other, equally likely, candidates for these kinds of stalls:
> >
> > - filesystem locks. Especially the ext2 superblock lock. You can easily
> > hit this one, as some ext2 functions actually do a lot of IO while
> > holding the lock.
>
> Hmm... In 2.4 we can make the situation with superblock lock on ext2
> much better.
Actually, 2.4.x right now is worse than 2.2.x in this regard, for a really
simple reason: 2.2.x will only do the equivalent of "rebalance_dirty" when
it dirties a previously clean buffer. The current 2.4.x code does that
regardless of whether the buffer was dirty before or not.
I want to see your patches to fix this for good in a 2.5.x timeframe (or,
if they are really clean and obvious, at a later 2.4.x date), but for
2.4.x I think that we'll do either "remove rebalance dirty completely" or
at the very least we'll not re-balance for re-dirtying a dirty buffer.
The re-dirtying a dirty buffer is the common case for the superblock
stuff: bitmap blocks etc are often dirty already, _especially_ in the case
of an active writer. So 2.4.x is actually more likely to hit the
superblock/bdflush contention.
Of course, 2.4.x has had so many improvements in file writing memory
pressure that it might not end up being that noticeable, but even so..
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 21:00:14 EST