Hi,
> >>>Original commit code assumes, that when a buffer on BJ_SyncData list is
> >>>locked,
> >>>it is being written to disk. But this is not true and hence it can lead
> >>>to a
> >>>potential data loss on crash. Also the code didn't count with the fact
> >>>that
> >>>journal_dirty_data() can steal buffers from committing transaction and
> >>>hence
> >>>could write buffers that no longer belong to the committing transaction.
> >>>Finally it could possibly happen that we tried writing out one buffer
> >>>several
> >>>times.
> >>>
> >>>The patch below tries to solve these problems by a complete rewrite of
> >>>the data
> >>>commit code. We go through buffers on t_sync_datalist, lock buffers
> >>>needing
> >>>write out and store them in an array. Buffers are also immediately
> >>>refiled to
> >>>BJ_Locked list or unfiled (if the write out is completed). When the
> >>>array is
> >>>full or we have to block on buffer lock, we submit all accumulated
> >>>buffers for
> >>>IO.
> >>>
> >>>Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <[email protected]>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>I have been running 4+ hours with this patch and seems to work fine. I
> >>haven't hit any
> >>assert yet :)
> >>
> >>I will let it run till tomorrow. I will let you know, how it goes.
> >>
> > Great, thanks. BTW: Do you have any performance tests handy? The
> >changes are big enough to cause some unexpected performance regressions,
> >livelocks... If you don't have anything ready, I can setup and run
> >something myself. Just that I don't like this testing too much ;).
> >
> Tests are still running fine.
>
> I don't have any performance tests handy. We have some automated tests I
> can schedule to run to verify the stability aspects.
OK. I've run IOZONE rewrite throughput test on my computer with
iozone -t 10 -i 0 -s 10M -e
2.6.18-rc6 and the same kernel + my patch seem to give almost the same
results. The strange thing was that both in vanilla and patched kernel there
were several runs where a write througput (when iozone was creating the file)
was suddenly 10% of the usual value (18MB/s vs. 2MB/s). The rewrite numbers
were always fine. Maybe that has something to do with block allocation
code. Anyway, it is not a regression of my patch so unless your test
finds some problem I think the patch should be ready for inclusion into
-mm...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SuSE CR Labs
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
