From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] nfsd: Only set PF_LESS_THROTTLE when really needed.
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 17:05:01 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53694E7D.6060706@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140423024058.4725.38098.stgit@notabene.brown>
On 04/22/2014 10:40 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> PF_LESS_THROTTLE has a very specific use case: to avoid deadlocks
> and live-locks while writing to the page cache in a loop-back
> NFS mount situation.
>
> It therefore makes sense to *only* set PF_LESS_THROTTLE in this
> situation.
> We now know when a request came from the local-host so it could be a
> loop-back mount. We already know when we are handling write requests,
> and when we are doing anything else.
>
> So combine those two to allow nfsd to still be throttled (like any
> other process) in every situation except when it is known to be
> problematic.
The FUSE code has something similar, but on the "client"
side.
See BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT in mm/writeback.c
Would it make sense to use that flag on loopback-mounted
NFS filesystems?
--
All rights reversed
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
To: NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@fieldses.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] nfsd: Only set PF_LESS_THROTTLE when really needed.
Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 17:05:01 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <53694E7D.6060706@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140423024058.4725.38098.stgit@notabene.brown>
On 04/22/2014 10:40 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> PF_LESS_THROTTLE has a very specific use case: to avoid deadlocks
> and live-locks while writing to the page cache in a loop-back
> NFS mount situation.
>
> It therefore makes sense to *only* set PF_LESS_THROTTLE in this
> situation.
> We now know when a request came from the local-host so it could be a
> loop-back mount. We already know when we are handling write requests,
> and when we are doing anything else.
>
> So combine those two to allow nfsd to still be throttled (like any
> other process) in every situation except when it is known to be
> problematic.
The FUSE code has something similar, but on the "client"
side.
See BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT in mm/writeback.c
Would it make sense to use that flag on loopback-mounted
NFS filesystems?
--
All rights reversed
--
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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-06 21:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-04-23 2:40 [PATCH/RFC 0/5] Support loop-back NFS mounts - take 2 NeilBrown
2014-04-23 2:40 ` NeilBrown
2014-04-23 2:40 ` [PATCH 1/5] MM: avoid throttling reclaim for loop-back nfsd threads NeilBrown
2014-04-23 2:40 ` NeilBrown
2014-04-23 22:03 ` Andrew Morton
2014-04-23 22:03 ` Andrew Morton
2014-04-23 22:47 ` NeilBrown
2014-04-23 2:40 ` [PATCH 2/5] SUNRPC: track whether a request is coming from a loop-back interface NeilBrown
2014-04-23 2:40 ` NeilBrown
2014-04-23 2:40 ` [PATCH 4/5] SUNRPC: track when a client connection is routed to the local host NeilBrown
2014-04-23 2:40 ` NeilBrown
2014-04-23 13:44 ` Anna Schumaker
2014-04-23 13:44 ` Anna Schumaker
2014-04-23 23:14 ` NeilBrown
2014-04-23 23:14 ` NeilBrown
2014-04-24 12:46 ` Anna Schumaker
2014-04-24 12:46 ` Anna Schumaker
2014-04-23 2:40 ` [PATCH 5/5] NFS: avoid deadlocks with loop-back mounted NFS filesystems NeilBrown
2014-04-23 2:40 ` NeilBrown
2014-04-23 2:40 ` [PATCH 3/5] nfsd: Only set PF_LESS_THROTTLE when really needed NeilBrown
2014-04-23 2:40 ` NeilBrown
2014-05-06 20:54 ` J. Bruce Fields
2014-05-06 20:54 ` J. Bruce Fields
2014-05-12 1:05 ` NeilBrown
2014-05-06 21:05 ` Rik van Riel [this message]
2014-05-06 21:05 ` Rik van Riel
2014-05-12 1:04 ` NeilBrown
2014-05-12 15:32 ` Jan Kara
2014-05-12 15:32 ` Jan Kara
2014-04-24 1:20 ` [PATCH/RFC 0/5] Support loop-back NFS mounts - take 2 Dave Chinner
2014-04-24 1:20 ` Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=53694E7D.6060706@redhat.com \
--to=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bfields@fieldses.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.com \
--cc=neilb@suse.de \
--cc=trond.myklebust@primarydata.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.