On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:05:31PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 03:23:48PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Dave Jones <da...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > So with that patch, those two boxes have now been fuzzing away for > > > over 24hrs without seeing that specific sync related bug. > > > > Ok, so at least that confirms that yes, the problem is the excessive > > contention on inode_sb_list_lock. > > > > Ugh. There's no way we can do that patch by DaveC for 3.10. Not only > > is it scary, Andi pointed out that it's actively buggy and will miss > > inodes that need writeback due to moving things to private lists. > > Right - it was just a quick hack for proof of concept... :) > > > So I suspect we'll have to do 3.10 with this starvation issue in > > place, and mark for stable backporting whatever eventual fix we find. > > I can reproduce the contention problem on both 3.8 and 3.9 kernels, > so this isn't a recent regression, and as such it's likely I'll be > able to reproduce it on any kernel since the global inode_lock > breakup was done back in 2.6.38.
Just as a data point - I just found a machine running a 3.4 kernel and I can reproduce the inode_sb_list_lock contention problem on it, too. It's definitely not a new problem... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
