Re: Re: Question about ext4 excessive stall time

[EUNBONG SONG]

> On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 07:15:02AM +0000, EUNBONG SONG wrote:
> > I know my kernel version is so old. I just want to know why this
> > problem is happened.  Because of my kernel version is old? or
> > Because of disk ?,, If anyone knows about this problem, Could you
> > help me?

> So what's happening is this.  The CFQ I/O scheduler prioritizes reads
> over writes, since most reads are synchronous (for example, if the
> compiler is waiting for the data block from include/unistd.h, it cant
> make forward progress until it receives the data blocks; there is an
> exception for readahead blocks, but those are dealt with at a low
> priority), and most writes are synchronous (since they are issued by
> the writeback daemons, and unless we are doing an fsync, no one is
> waiting for them).
>
> The problem comes when a metadata block, usually one which is shared
> across multiple files is undergoing writeback, such as an inode table
> block or a allocation bitmap block.  The write gets issued as a low
> priority I/O operation.  Then during the the next jbd2 transaction,
> some userspace operation needs to modify that metadata block, and in
> order to do that, it has to call jbd2_journal_get_write_access().  But
> if there is heavy read traffic going on, due to some other process
> using the disk a lot, the writeback operation may end up getting
> starved, and doesn't get acted on for a very long time.
>
> But the moment a process called jbd2_journal_get_write_access(), the
> write has effectively become one which is synchronous, in that forward
> progress of at least one process is now getting blocked waiting for
> this I/O to complete, since the buffer_head is locked for writeback,
> possibly for hundreds or thousands of milliseconds, and
> jbd2_journal_get_write_access() can not proceed until it can get the
> buffer_head lock.
>
> This was discussed at least month's Linux Storage, File System, and MM
> worksthop.  The right solution is to for lock_buffer() to notice if
> the buffer head has been locked for writeback, and if so, to bump the
> write request to the head of the elevator.  Jeff Moyer is looking at
> this.
>
> The partial workaround which will be in 3.10 is that we're marking all
> metadata writes with REQ_META and REQ_PRIO.  This will cause metadata
> writebacks to be prioritized at the same priority level as synchrnous
> reads.  If there is heavy read traffic, the metadata writebacks will
> still be in competition with the reads, but at least they will
> complete.
>
> Once we get priority escalation (or priority inheritance, because what
> we're seeing here is really a classic priority inversion problem),
> then it would make sense for us to no longer set REQ_PRIO for metadata
> writebacks, so the metadata writebacks only get prioritized when they
> are blocking some process from making forward progress.  (Doing this
> will probably result in a slight performance degradation on some
> workloads, but it will improve others with a heavy read traffic and
> minimal writeback interference.  We'll want to benchmark what
> percentage of metadata writebacks require getting bumped to the head
> of the line, but I suspect it will be the right choice.)
>
> If you want to try to backport this workaround to your older kernel,
> please see commit 9f203507ed277.


Hi, Ted.
I appreciate for your fantastic explanation. It's really great and very helpful for me.
Now i can understand about this issue thanks to you.

Thanks!
EunBong

?移ťŽ&Ţ~ş&śŹ–+-깁負ĽŠwŽ왢쎉喝méb욎dz받–)í끾čw*jgП¨ś‰šŽ듶˘j/곴äz받–듺2듷솳鈺Ú&˘)傘Ťa뛴ŽGŤ앶hŽćj:+v돣Šwč녪Ľ>W슧違iŰaxPjŘmśŸ˙Ă-ť+껠dš_