Jan Kara <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Also, I don't think it works. See ll_rw_block()'s handling of
> > already-locked buffers..
>
> We send it to disk with SWRITE - hence ll_rw_block() wait for the buffer
> lock for us. Or do you have something else in mind?
>
OK.
> > An alternative is to just lock the buffer in journal_commit_transaction(),
> > if it was locked-and-dirty. And remove the call to ll_rw_block() and
> > submit the locked buffers by hand.
>
> Yes, this has the advantage that we can move the buffer to t_locked_list
> in the right time and so we don't change the semantics of t_locked_list.
> OTOH the locking will be a bit more complicated (we'd need to acquire and
> drop j_list_lock almost for every bh while currently we do it only once
> per batch)
Only need to drop the spinlock if test_set_buffer_locked() fails.
>
> spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> while (commit_transaction->t_sync_datalist) {
> jh = commit_transaction->t_sync_datalist;
> bh = jh2bh(jh);
> journal_grab_journal_head(bh);
> if (buffer_dirty(bh)) {
> get_bh(bh);
> spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> lock_buffer(bh);
> if (buffer_dirty(bh))
> /* submit the buffer */
> jbd_lock_bh_state(bh);
> spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> /* Check that somebody did not move the jh elsewhere */
> }
> else {
> if (!inverted_lock(journal, bh))
> goto write_out_data;
> }
> __journal_temp_unlink_buffer(jh);
> __journal_file_buffer(jh, commit_transaction, BJ_Locked);
> journal_put_journal_head(bh);
> jbd_unlock_bh_state(bh);
> }
>
> If you prefer something like this I can code it up...
If the code is conceptually simpler then I think it's worth doing, even if
the actual implementation is similarly or even more complex.
So yes please, let's see how it looks.
> > That would mean that if someone had redirtied a buffer which was on
> > t_sync_datalist *while* it was under writeout, we'd end up waiting on that
> > writeout to complete before submitting more I/O. But I suspect that's
> > pretty rare.
> >
> > One thing which concerns me with your approach is livelocks: if some process
> > sits in a tight loop writing to the same part of the same file, will it
> > cause kjournald to get stuck?
>
> No, because as soon as we find the buffer in t_sync_datalist we move
> it to t_locked_list and submit it for IO - this case is one reason why I
> introduced that new meaning to t_locked_list.
Right. But the buffer can be redirtied while it's on t_locked_list, even
while the I/O is in flight. What happens then? Will kjournald try to
rewrite it?
-
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/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |