On Fri 14-08-09 15:58:47, Andrew Morton wrote:

On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 17:25:05 +0200
Nick Piggin [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

We have had a report of memory allocation hangs during DVD-RAM (UDF) writing.

Jan tracked the cause of this down to UDF inode reclaim blocking:

gnome-screens D ffff810006d1d598     0 20686      1
 ffff810006d1d508 0000000000000082 ffff810037db6718 0000000000000800
 ffff810006d1d488 ffffffff807e4280 ffffffff807e4280 ffff810006d1a580
 ffff8100bccbc140 ffff810006d1a8c0 0000000006d1d4e8 ffff810006d1a8c0
Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff804477f3>] io_schedule+0x63/0xa5
 [<ffffffff802c2587>] sync_buffer+0x3b/0x3f
 [<ffffffff80447d2a>] __wait_on_bit+0x47/0x79
 [<ffffffff80447dc6>] out_of_line_wait_on_bit+0x6a/0x77
 [<ffffffff802c24f6>] __wait_on_buffer+0x1f/0x21
 [<ffffffff802c442a>] __bread+0x70/0x86
 [<ffffffff88de9ec7>] :udf:udf_tread+0x38/0x3a
 [<ffffffff88de0fcf>] :udf:udf_update_inode+0x4d/0x68c
 [<ffffffff88de26e1>] :udf:udf_write_inode+0x1d/0x2b
 [<ffffffff802bcf85>] __writeback_single_inode+0x1c0/0x394
 [<ffffffff802bd205>] write_inode_now+0x7d/0xc4
 [<ffffffff88de2e76>] :udf:udf_clear_inode+0x3d/0x53
 [<ffffffff802b39ae>] clear_inode+0xc2/0x11b
 [<ffffffff802b3ab1>] dispose_list+0x5b/0x102
 [<ffffffff802b3d35>] shrink_icache_memory+0x1dd/0x213
 [<ffffffff8027ede3>] shrink_slab+0xe3/0x158
 [<ffffffff8027fbab>] try_to_free_pages+0x177/0x232
 [<ffffffff8027a578>] __alloc_pages+0x1fa/0x392
 [<ffffffff802951fa>] alloc_page_vma+0x176/0x189
 [<ffffffff802822d8>] __do_fault+0x10c/0x417
 [<ffffffff80284232>] handle_mm_fault+0x466/0x940
 [<ffffffff8044b922>] do_page_fault+0x676/0xabf

Which blocks with the inode lock held, which then blocks other
reclaimers:

X             D ffff81009d47c400     0 17285  14831
 ffff8100844f3728 0000000000000086 0000000000000000 ffff81000000e288
 ffff81000000da00 ffffffff807e4280 ffffffff807e4280 ffff81009d47c400
 ffffffff805ff890 ffff81009d47c740 00000000844f3808 ffff81009d47c740
Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff80447f8c>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x72/0xa9
 [<ffffffff80447e1a>] mutex_lock+0x1e/0x22
 [<ffffffff802b3ba1>] shrink_icache_memory+0x49/0x213
 [<ffffffff8027ede3>] shrink_slab+0xe3/0x158
 [<ffffffff8027fbab>] try_to_free_pages+0x177/0x232
 [<ffffffff8027a578>] __alloc_pages+0x1fa/0x392
 [<ffffffff8029507f>] alloc_pages_current+0xd1/0xd6
 [<ffffffff80279ac0>] __get_free_pages+0xe/0x4d
 [<ffffffff802ae1b7>] __pollwait+0x5e/0xdf
 [<ffffffff8860f2b4>] :nvidia:nv_kern_poll+0x2e/0x73
 [<ffffffff802ad949>] do_select+0x308/0x506
 [<ffffffff802adced>] core_sys_select+0x1a6/0x254
 [<ffffffff802ae0b7>] sys_select+0xb5/0x157

That isn't a hang.  When the bread() completes, everything proceeds.

quoted

Now I think the main problem is having the filesystem block (and do IO
in inode reclaim. The problem is that this doesn't get accounted well
and penalizes a random allocator with a big latency spike caused by
work generated from elsewhere.

Yes.  Why does UDF do all that stuff in ->clear_inode()?  Other
filesystems have very simple, non-blocking, non-IO-doing
->clear_inode() implementations.  This sounds like a design problem
within UDF.

  Yes, it's a problem within the UDF code. I already got rid of discarding
the preallocation in clear_inode() but still last extent is truncated
there. The trouble with getting rid of that is that according to specs, a
length of the last extent has to exactly match i_size (and even for
directories or symlinks, i_size isn't blocksize aligned). So far we have
all extent lengths block aligned and set the length of the last one in
clear_inode. To get rid of that I'll probably set a length of the last
extent on each inode write, but one has to be careful about races with
truncate...

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara [off-list ref]
SUSE Labs, CR

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>