writeback: do uninterruptible sleep in balance_dirty_pages()
authorWu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Wed, 22 Dec 2010 01:24:21 +0000 (17:24 -0800)
committerLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Thu, 23 Dec 2010 03:43:33 +0000 (19:43 -0800)
Using TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE in balance_dirty_pages() seems wrong.  If it's
going to do that then it must break out if signal_pending(), otherwise
it's pretty much guaranteed to degenerate into a busywait loop.  Plus we
*do* want these processes to appear in D state and to contribute to load
average.

So it should be TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE.                 -- Andrew Morton

Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
mm/page-writeback.c

index b840afa89761ce0d83690ff963385399246fa6d8..b4edfe7ce06c1bf5f6d692235eac4e07f9068490 100644 (file)
@@ -563,7 +563,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
                                break;          /* We've done our duty */
                }
                trace_wbc_balance_dirty_wait(&wbc, bdi);
                                break;          /* We've done our duty */
                }
                trace_wbc_balance_dirty_wait(&wbc, bdi);
-               __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
+               __set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
                io_schedule_timeout(pause);
 
                /*
                io_schedule_timeout(pause);
 
                /*