Skip to content

L
Linux Imx

FengXiao2002 / Linux Imx

通知 8
Star 0
Fork 0
L
Linux Imx

体验新版 GitCode，发现更多精彩内容 >>

切换分支/标签
  1. 17 10月, 2007 1 次提交
    • M
      Group short-lived and reclaimable kernel allocations · e12ba74d
      由 Mel Gorman 提交于 
      This patch marks a number of allocations that are either short-lived such as
network buffers or are reclaimable such as inode allocations.  When something
like updatedb is called, long-lived and unmovable kernel allocations tend to
be spread throughout the address space which increases fragmentation.

This patch groups these allocations together as much as possible by adding a
new MIGRATE_TYPE.  The MIGRATE_RECLAIMABLE type is for allocations that can be
reclaimed on demand, but not moved.  i.e.  they can be migrated by deleting
them and re-reading the information from elsewhere.
Signed-off-by: NMel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Andy Whitcroft <apw@shadowen.org>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      e12ba74d
  3. 12 10月, 2007 1 次提交
  5. 20 7月, 2007 1 次提交
    • P
      mm: Remove slab destructors from kmem_cache_create(). · 20c2df83
      由 Paul Mundt 提交于 
      Slab destructors were no longer supported after Christoph's
c59def9f change. They've been
BUGs for both slab and slub, and slob never supported them
either.

This rips out support for the dtor pointer from kmem_cache_create()
completely and fixes up every single callsite in the kernel (there were
about 224, not including the slab allocator definitions themselves,
or the documentation references).
Signed-off-by: NPaul Mundt <lethal@linux-sh.org>
      20c2df83
  7. 17 7月, 2007 2 次提交
  9. 09 5月, 2007 3 次提交
  11. 23 12月, 2006 1 次提交
  13. 11 12月, 2006 1 次提交
  15. 08 12月, 2006 3 次提交
  17. 29 10月, 2006 1 次提交
    • E
      [PATCH] jbd: journal_dirty_data re-check for unmapped buffers · f58a74dc
      由 Eric Sandeen 提交于 
      When running several fsx's and other filesystem stress tests, we found
cases where an unmapped buffer was still being sent to submit_bh by the
ext3 dirty data journaling code.

I saw this happen in two ways, both related to another thread doing a
truncate which would unmap the buffer in question.

Either we would get into journal_dirty_data with a bh which was already
unmapped (although journal_dirty_data_fn had checked for this earlier, the
state was not locked at that point), or it would get unmapped in the middle
of journal_dirty_data when we dropped locks to call sync_dirty_buffer.

By re-checking for mapped state after we've acquired the bh state lock, we
should avoid these races.  If we find a buffer which is no longer mapped,
we essentially ignore it, because journal_unmap_buffer has already decided
that this buffer can go away.

I've also added tracepoints in these two cases, and made a couple other
tracepoint changes that I found useful in debugging this.
Signed-off-by: NEric Sandeen <esandeen@redhat.com>
Cc: <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
      f58a74dc
  19. 21 10月, 2006 1 次提交
    • O
      [PATCH] ext3/4: fix J_ASSERT(transaction->t_updates > 0) in journal_stop() · 3e2a532b
      由 OGAWA Hirofumi 提交于 
      A disk generated some I/O error, after it, I hitted
J_ASSERT(transaction->t_updates > 0) in journal_stop().

It seems to happened on ext3_truncate() path from stack trace. Then,
maybe the following case may trigger J_ASSERT(transaction->t_updates > 0).

ext3_truncate()
    -> ext3_free_branches()
        -> ext3_journal_test_restart()
	    -> ext3_journal_restart()
                -> journal_restart()
                transaction->t_updates--;
                /* another process aborted journal */
                    -> start_this_handle()
		    returns -EROFS without transaction->t_updates++;

    -> ext3_journal_stop()
        -> journal_stop()
	J_ASSERT(transaction->t_updates > 0)

If journal was aborted in middle of journal_restart(), ext3_truncate()
may trigger J_ASSERT().
Signed-off-by: NOGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>
Cc: <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
      3e2a532b
  21. 12 10月, 2006 1 次提交
  23. 04 10月, 2006 1 次提交
  25. 30 9月, 2006 2 次提交
  27. 27 9月, 2006 6 次提交
  29. 26 9月, 2006 1 次提交
    • J
      [PATCH] jbd: fix commit of ordered data buffers · 3998b930
      由 Jan Kara 提交于 
      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.

[suitable for 2.6.18.x around the 2.6.19-rc2 timeframe]
Signed-off-by: NJan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <stable@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
      3998b930
  31. 02 9月, 2006 1 次提交
  33. 28 8月, 2006 1 次提交
  35. 28 6月, 2006 1 次提交
  37. 26 6月, 2006 1 次提交
  39. 23 6月, 2006 3 次提交
    • J
      [PATCH] JBD: split checkpoint lists · 78ce89c9
      由 Jan Kara 提交于 
      Split the checkpoint list of the transaction into two lists.  In the first
list we keep the buffers that need to be submitted for IO.  In the second
list are kept buffers that were already submitted and we just have to wait
for the IO to complete.  This should simplify a handling of checkpoint
lists a bit and can eventually be also a performance gain.
Signed-off-by: NJan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@oracle.com>
Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
      78ce89c9
    • A
      [PATCH] jbd: avoid kfree(NULL) · 304c4c84
      由 Andrew Morton 提交于 
      There are a couple of places where JBD has to check to see whether an unneeded
memory allocation was performed.  Usually it _was_ needed, so we end up
calling kfree(NULL).  We can micro-optimise that by checking the pointer
before calling kfree().

Thanks to Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> for identifying this.
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
      304c4c84
    • J
      [PATCH] jbd: fix BUG in journal_commit_transaction() · 9ada7340
      由 Jan Kara 提交于 
      Fix possible assertion failure in journal_commit_transaction() on
jh->b_next_transaction == NULL (when we are processing BJ_Forget list and
buffer is not jbddirty).

!jbddirty buffers can be placed on BJ_Forget list for example by
journal_forget() or by __dispose_buffer() - generally such buffer means
that it has been freed by this transaction.

Freed buffers should not be reallocated until the transaction has committed
(that's why we have the assertion there) but they *can* be reallocated when
the transaction has already been committed to disk and we are just
processing the BJ_Forget list (as soon as we remove b_committed_data from
the bitmap bh, ext3 will be able to reallocate buffers freed by the
committing transaction).  So we have to also count with the case that the
buffer has been reallocated and b_next_transaction has been already set.

And one more subtle point: it can happen that we manage to reallocate the
buffer and also mark it jbddirty.  Then we also add the freed buffer to the
checkpoint list of the committing trasaction.  But that should do no harm.

Non-jbddirty buffers should be filed to BJ_Reserved and not BJ_Metadata
list.  It can actually happen that we refile such buffers during the commit
phase when we reallocate in the running transaction blocks deleted in
committing transaction (and that can happen if the committing transaction
already wrote all the data and is just cleaning up BJ_Forget list).
Signed-off-by: NJan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Acked-by: N"Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
      9ada7340
  41. 27 3月, 2006 1 次提交
  43. 26 3月, 2006 2 次提交
  45. 23 3月, 2006 1 次提交
  47. 15 2月, 2006 1 次提交
  49. 06 2月, 2006 1 次提交
    • A
      [PATCH] jbd: fix transaction batching · fe1dcbc4
      由 Andrew Morton 提交于 
      Ben points out that:

  When writing files out using O_SYNC, jbd's 1 jiffy delay results in a
  significant drop in throughput as the disk sits idle.  The patch below
  results in a 4-5x performance improvement (from 6.5MB/s to ~24-30MB/s on my
  IDE test box) when writing out files using O_SYNC.

So optimise the batching code by omitting it entirely if the process which is
doing a sync write is the same as the one which did the most recent sync
write.  If that's true, we're unlikely to get any other processes joining the
transaction.

(Has been in -mm for ages - it took me a long time to get on to performance
testing it)

Numbers, on write-cache-disabled IDE:

/usr/bin/time -p synctest -n 10 -uf -t 1 -p 1 dir-name

Unpatched:
	40 seconds
Patched:
	35 seconds
Batching disabled:
	35 seconds

This is the problematic single-process-doing-fsync case.  With multiple
fsyncing processes the numbers are AFACIT unaltered by the patch.

Aside: performance testing and instrumentation shows that the transaction
batching almost doesn't help (testing with synctest -n 1 -uf -t 100 -p 10
dir-name on non-writeback-caching IDE).  This is because by the time one
process is running a synchronous commit, a bunch of other processes already
have a transaction handle open, so they're all going to batch into the same
transaction anyway.

The batching seems to offer maybe 5-10% speedup with this workload, but I'm
pretty sure it was more important than that when it was first developed 4-odd
years ago...

Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" <sct@redhat.com>
Cc: Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@kvack.org>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
      fe1dcbc4
  51. 19 1月, 2006 1 次提交