Skip to content

L
linux

xiphi1978 / linux

通知 2
Star 0
Fork 0
L
linux

体验新版 GitCode，发现更多精彩内容 >>

切换分支/标签
  1. 24 9月, 2009 1 次提交
    • J
      vfs: change sb->s_maxbytes to a loff_t · 42cb56ae
      由 Jeff Layton 提交于 
      sb->s_maxbytes is supposed to indicate the maximum size of a file that can
exist on the filesystem.  It's declared as an unsigned long long.

Even if a filesystem has no inherent limit that prevents it from using
every bit in that unsigned long long, it's still problematic to set it to
anything larger than MAX_LFS_FILESIZE.  There are places in the kernel
that cast s_maxbytes to a signed value.  If it's set too large then this
cast makes it a negative number and generally breaks the comparison.

Change s_maxbytes to be loff_t instead.  That should help eliminate the
temptation to set it too large by making it a signed value.

Also, add a warning for couple of releases to help catch filesystems that
set s_maxbytes too large.  Eventually we can either convert this to a
BUG() or just remove it and in the hope that no one will get it wrong now
that it's a signed value.
Signed-off-by: NJeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Robert Love <rlove@google.com>
Cc: Mandeep Singh Baines <msb@google.com>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
      42cb56ae
  3. 22 9月, 2009 1 次提交
  5. 16 9月, 2009 1 次提交
  7. 11 9月, 2009 2 次提交
    • J
      writeback: switch to per-bdi threads for flushing data · 03ba3782
      由 Jens Axboe 提交于 
      This gets rid of pdflush for bdi writeout and kupdated style cleaning.
pdflush writeout suffers from lack of locality and also requires more
threads to handle the same workload, since it has to work in a
non-blocking fashion against each queue. This also introduces lumpy
behaviour and potential request starvation, since pdflush can be starved
for queue access if others are accessing it. A sample ffsb workload that
does random writes to files is about 8% faster here on a simple SATA drive
during the benchmark phase. File layout also seems a LOT more smooth in
vmstat:

 r  b   swpd   free   buff  cache   si   so    bi    bo   in    cs us sy id wa
 0  1      0 608848   2652 375372    0    0     0 71024  604    24  1 10 48 42
 0  1      0 549644   2712 433736    0    0     0 60692  505    27  1  8 48 44
 1  0      0 476928   2784 505192    0    0     4 29540  553    24  0  9 53 37
 0  1      0 457972   2808 524008    0    0     0 54876  331    16  0  4 38 58
 0  1      0 366128   2928 614284    0    0     4 92168  710    58  0 13 53 34
 0  1      0 295092   3000 684140    0    0     0 62924  572    23  0  9 53 37
 0  1      0 236592   3064 741704    0    0     4 58256  523    17  0  8 48 44
 0  1      0 165608   3132 811464    0    0     0 57460  560    21  0  8 54 38
 0  1      0 102952   3200 873164    0    0     4 74748  540    29  1 10 48 41
 0  1      0  48604   3252 926472    0    0     0 53248  469    29  0  7 47 45

where vanilla tends to fluctuate a lot in the creation phase:

 r  b   swpd   free   buff  cache   si   so    bi    bo   in    cs us sy id wa
 1  1      0 678716   5792 303380    0    0     0 74064  565    50  1 11 52 36
 1  0      0 662488   5864 319396    0    0     4   352  302   329  0  2 47 51
 0  1      0 599312   5924 381468    0    0     0 78164  516    55  0  9 51 40
 0  1      0 519952   6008 459516    0    0     4 78156  622    56  1 11 52 37
 1  1      0 436640   6092 541632    0    0     0 82244  622    54  0 11 48 41
 0  1      0 436640   6092 541660    0    0     0     8  152    39  0  0 51 49
 0  1      0 332224   6200 644252    0    0     4 102800  728    46  1 13 49 36
 1  0      0 274492   6260 701056    0    0     4 12328  459    49  0  7 50 43
 0  1      0 211220   6324 763356    0    0     0 106940  515    37  1 10 51 39
 1  0      0 160412   6376 813468    0    0     0  8224  415    43  0  6 49 45
 1  1      0  85980   6452 886556    0    0     4 113516  575    39  1 11 54 34
 0  2      0  85968   6452 886620    0    0     0  1640  158   211  0  0 46 54

A 10 disk test with btrfs performs 26% faster with per-bdi flushing. A
SSD based writeback test on XFS performs over 20% better as well, with
the throughput being very stable around 1GB/sec, where pdflush only
manages 750MB/sec and fluctuates wildly while doing so. Random buffered
writes to many files behave a lot better as well, as does random mmap'ed
writes.

A separate thread is added to sync the super blocks. In the long term,
adding sync_supers_bdi() functionality could get rid of this thread again.
Signed-off-by: NJens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
      03ba3782
    • J
      writeback: move dirty inodes from super_block to backing_dev_info · 66f3b8e2
      由 Jens Axboe 提交于 
      This is a first step at introducing per-bdi flusher threads. We should
have no change in behaviour, although sb_has_dirty_inodes() is now
ridiculously expensive, as there's no easy way to answer that question.
Not a huge problem, since it'll be deleted in subsequent patches.
Signed-off-by: NJens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
      66f3b8e2
  9. 24 6月, 2009 2 次提交
    • A
      ... and the same for vfsmount id/mount group id · f21f6220
      由 Al Viro 提交于 
      Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
      f21f6220
    • A
      Make allocation of anon devices cheaper · c63e09ec
      由 Al Viro 提交于 
      Standard trick - add a new variable (start) such that
for each n < start n is known to be busy.  Allocation can
skip checking everything in [0..start) and if it returns
n, we can set start to n + 1.  Freeing below start sets
start to what we'd just freed.

Of course, it still sucks if we do something like
	free 0
	allocate
	allocate
in a loop - still O(n^2) time.  However, on saner loads it
improves the things a lot and the entire thing is not worth
the trouble of switching to something with better worst-case
behaviour.
Signed-off-by: NAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
      c63e09ec
  11. 17 6月, 2009 1 次提交
  13. 12 6月, 2009 17 次提交
  15. 09 5月, 2009 2 次提交
  17. 07 4月, 2009 1 次提交
  19. 03 4月, 2009 1 次提交
  21. 28 3月, 2009 1 次提交
  23. 26 3月, 2009 2 次提交
  25. 13 3月, 2009 1 次提交
  27. 19 2月, 2009 1 次提交
    • P
      fs/super.c: add lockdep annotation to s_umount · ada723dc
      由 Peter Zijlstra 提交于 
      Li Zefan said:

Thread 1:
  for ((; ;))
  {
      mount -t cpuset xxx /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1
      cat /mnt/cpus > /dev/null 2>&1
      umount /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1
  }

Thread 2:
  for ((; ;))
  {
      mount -t cpuset xxx /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1
      umount /mnt > /dev/null 2>&1
  }

(Note: It is irrelevant which cgroup subsys is used.)

After a while a lockdep warning showed up:

=============================================
[ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
2.6.28 #479
---------------------------------------------
mount/13554 is trying to acquire lock:
 (&type->s_umount_key#19){--..}, at: [<c049d888>] sget+0x5e/0x321

but task is already holding lock:
 (&type->s_umount_key#19){--..}, at: [<c049da0c>] sget+0x1e2/0x321

other info that might help us debug this:
1 lock held by mount/13554:
 #0:  (&type->s_umount_key#19){--..}, at: [<c049da0c>] sget+0x1e2/0x321

stack backtrace:
Pid: 13554, comm: mount Not tainted 2.6.28-mc #479
Call Trace:
 [<c044ad2e>] validate_chain+0x4c6/0xbbd
 [<c044ba9b>] __lock_acquire+0x676/0x700
 [<c044bb82>] lock_acquire+0x5d/0x7a
 [<c049d888>] ? sget+0x5e/0x321
 [<c061b9b8>] down_write+0x34/0x50
 [<c049d888>] ? sget+0x5e/0x321
 [<c049d888>] sget+0x5e/0x321
 [<c045a2e7>] ? cgroup_set_super+0x0/0x3e
 [<c045959f>] ? cgroup_test_super+0x0/0x2f
 [<c045bcea>] cgroup_get_sb+0x98/0x2e7
 [<c045cfb6>] cpuset_get_sb+0x4a/0x5f
 [<c049dfa4>] vfs_kern_mount+0x40/0x7b
 [<c049e02d>] do_kern_mount+0x37/0xbf
 [<c04af4a0>] do_mount+0x5c3/0x61a
 [<c04addd2>] ? copy_mount_options+0x2c/0x111
 [<c04af560>] sys_mount+0x69/0xa0
 [<c0403251>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x31

The cause is after alloc_super() and then retry, an old entry in list
fs_supers is found, so grab_super(old) is called, but both functions hold
s_umount lock:

struct super_block *sget(...)
{
	...
retry:
	spin_lock(&sb_lock);
	if (test) {
		list_for_each_entry(old, &type->fs_supers, s_instances) {
			if (!test(old, data))
				continue;
			if (!grab_super(old))  <--- 2nd: down_write(&old->s_umount);
				goto retry;
			if (s)
				destroy_super(s);
			return old;
		}
	}
	if (!s) {
		spin_unlock(&sb_lock);
		s = alloc_super(type);   <--- 1th: down_write(&s->s_umount)
		if (!s)
			return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
		goto retry;
	}
	...
}

It seems like a false positive, and seems like VFS but not cgroup needs to
be fixed.

Peter said:

We can simply put the new s_umount instance in a but lockdep doesn't
particularly cares about subclass order.

If there's any issue with the callers of sget() assuming the s_umount lock
being of sublcass 0, then there is another annotation we can use to fix
that, but lets not bother with that if this is sufficient.

Addresses http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12673Signed-off-by: NPeter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Tested-by: NLi Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reported-by: NLi Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Paul Menage <menage@google.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      ada723dc
  29. 09 2月, 2009 1 次提交
  31. 14 1月, 2009 1 次提交
  33. 09 1月, 2009 1 次提交
  35. 08 1月, 2009 1 次提交
  37. 03 1月, 2009 1 次提交
  39. 20 12月, 2008 1 次提交