On 2020/3/11 6:20 下午, Benjamin Allot wrote:
> Hello and sorry for the noise if this list is fully intended for contribution or patch purpose only.
>
> We use bcache quite a lot on our infrastructure, and quite happily so far.
> We recently noticed a strange behavior in the way bcache reports amount of dirty data and the related
> available cache percentage used.
>
> I opened a related "bug" [0] but I will do a quick TL;DR here
>
> * bcache is in writeback mode, running, with one cache device, one backing device, writeback_percent set to 40
>
> * bcache congested_{read,write}_threshold_us are set to 0
>
> * writeback_rate_debug shows 148Gb of dirty data, priority_stats shows 70% of dirty data in the cache,
> the cache device is 1.6 TB (and the cache size related to that, given the nbbucket and bucket_size),
> so one of the metric is lying. Because we're at 70%, I believe we bypass the writeback
> completely because we reach CUTOFF_WRITEBACK_SYNC [1].
>
> * As a result, on an I/O intensive throughput server, we have high I/O latency (=~ 1 sec) for both the cache device
> and the backing device (although I don't explain why we have this latency on the cache device as well. The graphs
> of both devices are pretty much aligned).
>
> * when the GC is triggered (manually or automatically), the writeback is restored for a short period of
> time (10-15 minutes) and the I/O latency drops. Until we reach the 70% of dirty data mark again
>
> * we seems to have this discrepancy of metric everywhere but because the default writeback_percent is at 10%, we
> never really reach the 70% threshold as displayed in priority_stats
>
> Again sorry if this was the wrong forum.
>
> Regards,
>
> [0]: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=206767
> [1]: https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/v4.15/drivers/md/bcache/writeback.h line 69
>
Hi Benjamin,
I see the kernel is 4.15 stable without bcache backport, am I right ?
There are quite a lot of things fixed in later kernel releases. And I
suggest to use Linux kernel after v5.3 (and v5.5 is better), which I
feel most of obvious issues are fixed.
Could you please to try Linux v5.5 and see whether things get better ?
Thanks.
--
Coly Li
