diff options
author | Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> | 2012-04-23 05:58:35 (GMT) |
---|---|---|
committer | Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com> | 2012-05-14 21:20:28 (GMT) |
commit | 8a48088f6439249019b5e17f6391e710656879d9 (patch) | |
tree | b898076f1f2245dc435fa8e64b1ddac2b8424c7e /fs/xfs | |
parent | 211e4d434bd737be38aabad0247ce3da9964370e (diff) | |
download | linux-8a48088f6439249019b5e17f6391e710656879d9.tar.xz |
xfs: don't flush inodes from background inode reclaim
We already flush dirty inodes throug the AIL regularly, there is no reason
to have second thread compete with it and disturb the I/O pattern. We still
do write inodes when doing a synchronous reclaim from the shrinker or during
unmount for now.
Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'fs/xfs')
-rw-r--r-- | fs/xfs/xfs_sync.c | 102 |
1 files changed, 42 insertions, 60 deletions
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_sync.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_sync.c index 85d03e6..7b2bccc 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_sync.c +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_sync.c @@ -631,11 +631,8 @@ xfs_reclaim_inode_grab( } /* - * Inodes in different states need to be treated differently, and the return - * value of xfs_iflush is not sufficient to get this right. The following table - * lists the inode states and the reclaim actions necessary for non-blocking - * reclaim: - * + * Inodes in different states need to be treated differently. The following + * table lists the inode states and the reclaim actions necessary: * * inode state iflush ret required action * --------------- ---------- --------------- @@ -645,9 +642,8 @@ xfs_reclaim_inode_grab( * stale, unpinned 0 reclaim * clean, pinned(*) 0 requeue * stale, pinned EAGAIN requeue - * dirty, delwri ok 0 requeue - * dirty, delwri blocked EAGAIN requeue - * dirty, sync flush 0 reclaim + * dirty, async - requeue + * dirty, sync 0 reclaim * * (*) dgc: I don't think the clean, pinned state is possible but it gets * handled anyway given the order of checks implemented. @@ -658,26 +654,23 @@ xfs_reclaim_inode_grab( * * Also, because we get the flush lock first, we know that any inode that has * been flushed delwri has had the flush completed by the time we check that - * the inode is clean. The clean inode check needs to be done before flushing - * the inode delwri otherwise we would loop forever requeuing clean inodes as - * we cannot tell apart a successful delwri flush and a clean inode from the - * return value of xfs_iflush(). + * the inode is clean. * - * Note that because the inode is flushed delayed write by background - * writeback, the flush lock may already be held here and waiting on it can - * result in very long latencies. Hence for sync reclaims, where we wait on the - * flush lock, the caller should push out delayed write inodes first before - * trying to reclaim them to minimise the amount of time spent waiting. For - * background relaim, we just requeue the inode for the next pass. + * Note that because the inode is flushed delayed write by AIL pushing, the + * flush lock may already be held here and waiting on it can result in very + * long latencies. Hence for sync reclaims, where we wait on the flush lock, + * the caller should push the AIL first before trying to reclaim inodes to + * minimise the amount of time spent waiting. For background relaim, we only + * bother to reclaim clean inodes anyway. * * Hence the order of actions after gaining the locks should be: * bad => reclaim * shutdown => unpin and reclaim - * pinned, delwri => requeue + * pinned, async => requeue * pinned, sync => unpin * stale => reclaim * clean => reclaim - * dirty, delwri => flush and requeue + * dirty, async => requeue * dirty, sync => flush, wait and reclaim */ STATIC int @@ -716,10 +709,8 @@ restart: goto reclaim; } if (xfs_ipincount(ip)) { - if (!(sync_mode & SYNC_WAIT)) { - xfs_ifunlock(ip); - goto out; - } + if (!(sync_mode & SYNC_WAIT)) + goto out_ifunlock; xfs_iunpin_wait(ip); } if (xfs_iflags_test(ip, XFS_ISTALE)) @@ -728,6 +719,13 @@ restart: goto reclaim; /* + * Never flush out dirty data during non-blocking reclaim, as it would + * just contend with AIL pushing trying to do the same job. + */ + if (!(sync_mode & SYNC_WAIT)) + goto out_ifunlock; + + /* * Now we have an inode that needs flushing. * * We do a nonblocking flush here even if we are doing a SYNC_WAIT @@ -745,42 +743,13 @@ restart: * pass through will see the stale flag set on the inode. */ error = xfs_iflush(ip, SYNC_TRYLOCK | sync_mode); - if (sync_mode & SYNC_WAIT) { - if (error == EAGAIN) { - xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL); - /* backoff longer than in xfs_ifree_cluster */ - delay(2); - goto restart; - } - xfs_iflock(ip); - goto reclaim; - } - - /* - * When we have to flush an inode but don't have SYNC_WAIT set, we - * flush the inode out using a delwri buffer and wait for the next - * call into reclaim to find it in a clean state instead of waiting for - * it now. We also don't return errors here - if the error is transient - * then the next reclaim pass will flush the inode, and if the error - * is permanent then the next sync reclaim will reclaim the inode and - * pass on the error. - */ - if (error && error != EAGAIN && !XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN(ip->i_mount)) { - xfs_warn(ip->i_mount, - "inode 0x%llx background reclaim flush failed with %d", - (long long)ip->i_ino, error); + if (error == EAGAIN) { + xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL); + /* backoff longer than in xfs_ifree_cluster */ + delay(2); + goto restart; } -out: - xfs_iflags_clear(ip, XFS_IRECLAIM); - xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL); - /* - * We could return EAGAIN here to make reclaim rescan the inode tree in - * a short while. However, this just burns CPU time scanning the tree - * waiting for IO to complete and xfssyncd never goes back to the idle - * state. Instead, return 0 to let the next scheduled background reclaim - * attempt to reclaim the inode again. - */ - return 0; + xfs_iflock(ip); reclaim: xfs_ifunlock(ip); @@ -814,8 +783,21 @@ reclaim: xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL); xfs_inode_free(ip); - return error; + +out_ifunlock: + xfs_ifunlock(ip); +out: + xfs_iflags_clear(ip, XFS_IRECLAIM); + xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL); + /* + * We could return EAGAIN here to make reclaim rescan the inode tree in + * a short while. However, this just burns CPU time scanning the tree + * waiting for IO to complete and xfssyncd never goes back to the idle + * state. Instead, return 0 to let the next scheduled background reclaim + * attempt to reclaim the inode again. + */ + return 0; } /* |