[Lustre-devel] client i/o and PG_writeback
adilger at whamcloud.com
Thu Aug 11 12:38:33 PDT 2011
On 2011-08-11, at 12:21 PM, Jinshan Xiong wrote:
> Another problem I can think of is page checksum, if a page changes again
> during transfer, wrong checksum will be detected on the server side.
Actually, the kernel now uses PG_writeback to protect the page from being
modified while it is being written to disk (or in our case sent to the
network). This was recently fixed for ext4 and other filesystems so that
they can run properly on devices that support T10-DIF checksums. Otherwise
the disk keeps reporting checksum errors for files that were modified during
Lustre has a workaround for the case where the page is mmapped and is
modified during RPC sending (the only case today where the page can be
modified during IO), but it would be better not to have this workaround
at all. In this case the OSS detects the checksum error and the client
resends like any other data corruption, but there is a flag in the RPC
that silences the error messages that would otherwise be printed.
> On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 18:46 +0400, Nikita Danilov wrote:
>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2011 at 18:23 , Johann Lombardi wrote:
>>> Hi there,
>> Hi Johann, [sorry, I hit a send button accidentally a few minutes
>>> I am working on a new client-side RPC engine using the per-stripe
>>> radix tree to select pages and trying to minimize RPC fragmentation.
>>> This should allow us to consume grant space more intelligently and
>>> to support blocksize > pagesize (e.g. for ext4 bigalloc).
>>> For historical reasons (lustre was initially developed for 2.4
>>> kernels), the 1.8 client holds the page lock over bulk write RPCs.
>>> Some basic support for PG_writeback was added back in 2007 (see
>>> bugzilla ticket 11710), but the page lock is still held until RPC
>>> Like the 1.8 client, the new client i/o stack introduced in 2.0 also
>>> keeps pages locked over transfer. I'm estimating the effort involved
>>> in implementing full PG_writeback support in CLIO. Does anybody have
>>> any technical concerns about this change?
>> the reasons to use the same lock for page-in and page-out in CLIO were
>> * portability: Solaris, Windows and pretty much every kernel
>> around use the same lock and
>> * simplicity.
>> I don't think there are any serious problems with splitting the lock,
>> one has to be careful with checking all places where page is assumed
>> to be "owned" by IO and making certain the lock is taken, if
>>> Thanks in advance.
>>> Johann Lombardi
>>> Whamcloud, Inc.
>> Lustre-devel mailing list
>> Lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org
> Lustre-devel mailing list
> Lustre-devel at lists.lustre.org
More information about the lustre-devel