Re: application syncing options (was Re: [PATCH] Memory managementlivelock)

[Mikulas Patocka]

On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, david@xxxxxxx wrote:

> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> > > *What* is, forever? Data integrity syncs should have pages operated on
> > > in-order, until we get to the end of the range. Circular writeback could
> > > go through again, possibly, but no more than once.
> > 
> > OK, I have been able to reproduce it somewhat. It is not a livelock,
> > but what is happening is that direct IO read basically does an fsync
> > on the file before performing the IO. The fsync gets stuck behind the
> > dd that is dirtying the pages, and ends up following behind it and
> > doing all its IO for it.
> > 
> > The following patch avoids the issue for direct IO, by using the range
> > syncs rather than trying to sync the whole file.
> > 
> > The underlying problem I guess is unchanged. Is it really a problem,
> > though? The way I'd love to solve it is actually by adding another bit
> > or two to the pagecache radix tree,  that can be used to transiently tag
> > the tree for future operations. That way we could record the dirty and
> > writeback pages up front, and then only bother with operating on them.
> > 
> > That's *if* it really is a problem. I don't have much pity for someone
> > doing buffered IO and direct IO to the same pages of the same file :)
> 
> I've seen lots of discussions here about different options in syncing. in this
> case a fix is to do a fsync of a range.

It fixes the bug in concurrent direct read+buffed write, but won't fix the 
bug with concurrent sync+buffered write.

> I've also seen discussions of how the
> kernel filesystem code can do ordered writes without having to wait for them
> with the use of barriers, is this capability exported to userspace? if so,
> could you point me at documentation for it?

It isn't. And it is good that it isn't --- the more complicated API, the 
more maintenance work.

Mikulas

> David Lang
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/