On Sat, 2009-08-22 at 10:51 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> >
> > mm/page-writeback.c | 116 +++++++++++++++---------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 73 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff -puN mm/page-writeback.c~mm-balance_dirty_pages-reduce-calls-to-global_page_state-to-reduce-cache-references mm/page-writeback.c
> > --- a/mm/page-writeback.c~mm-balance_dirty_pages-reduce-calls-to-global_page_state-to-reduce-cache-references
> > +++ a/mm/page-writeback.c
> > @@ -249,32 +249,6 @@ static void bdi_writeout_fraction(struct
> > }
> > }
> >
> > -/*
> > - * Clip the earned share of dirty pages to that which is actually available.
> > - * This avoids exceeding the total dirty_limit when the floating averages
> > - * fluctuate too quickly.
> > - */
> > -static void clip_bdi_dirty_limit(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
> > - unsigned long dirty, unsigned long *pbdi_dirty)
> > -{
> > - unsigned long avail_dirty;
> > -
> > - avail_dirty = global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> > - global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK) +
> > - global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS) +
> > - global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP);
> > -
> > - if (avail_dirty < dirty)
> > - avail_dirty = dirty - avail_dirty;
> > - else
> > - avail_dirty = 0;
> > -
> > - avail_dirty += bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_RECLAIMABLE) +
> > - bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_WRITEBACK);
> > -
> > - *pbdi_dirty = min(*pbdi_dirty, avail_dirty);
> > -}
> > -
> > static inline void task_dirties_fraction(struct task_struct *tsk,
> > long *numerator, long *denominator)
> > {
> > @@ -465,7 +439,6 @@ get_dirty_limits(unsigned long *pbackgro
> > bdi_dirty = dirty * bdi->max_ratio / 100;
> >
> > *pbdi_dirty = bdi_dirty;
> > - clip_bdi_dirty_limit(bdi, dirty, pbdi_dirty);
> > task_dirty_limit(current, pbdi_dirty);
> > }
> > }
> > @@ -499,45 +472,12 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
> > };
> >
> > get_dirty_limits(&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh,
> > - &bdi_thresh, bdi);
> > + &bdi_thresh, bdi);
> >
> > nr_reclaimable = global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> > - global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS);
> > - nr_writeback = global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK);
> > -
> > - bdi_nr_reclaimable = bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
> > - bdi_nr_writeback = bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_WRITEBACK);
> > -
> > - if (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback <= bdi_thresh)
> > - break;
> > -
> > - /*
> > - * Throttle it only when the background writeback cannot
> > - * catch-up. This avoids (excessively) small writeouts
> > - * when the bdi limits are ramping up.
> > - */
> > - if (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback <
> > - (background_thresh + dirty_thresh) / 2)
> > - break;
> > -
> > - if (!bdi->dirty_exceeded)
> > - bdi->dirty_exceeded = 1;
> > -
> > - /* Note: nr_reclaimable denotes nr_dirty + nr_unstable.
> > - * Unstable writes are a feature of certain networked
> > - * filesystems (i.e. NFS) in which data may have been
> > - * written to the server's write cache, but has not yet
> > - * been flushed to permanent storage.
> > - * Only move pages to writeback if this bdi is over its
> > - * threshold otherwise wait until the disk writes catch
> > - * up.
> > - */
> > - if (bdi_nr_reclaimable > bdi_thresh) {
> > - generic_sync_bdi_inodes(NULL, &wbc);
> > - pages_written += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
> > - get_dirty_limits(&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh,
> > - &bdi_thresh, bdi);
> > - }
> > + global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS);
> > + nr_writeback = global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK) +
> > + global_page_state(NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP);
> >
> > /*
> > * In order to avoid the stacked BDI deadlock we need
> > @@ -557,16 +497,48 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
> > bdi_nr_writeback = bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_WRITEBACK);
> > }
> >
> > - if (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback <= bdi_thresh)
> > - break;
> > - if (pages_written >= write_chunk)
> > - break; /* We've done our duty */
>
> > + /* always throttle if over threshold */
> > + if (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback < dirty_thresh) {
>
> That 'if' is a big behavior change. It effectively blocks every one
> and canceled Peter's proportional throttling work: the less a process
> dirtied, the less it should be throttled.
>
I don't think it does. the code ends up looking like
FOR
IF less than dirty_thresh THEN
check bdi limits etc
ENDIF
thottle
ENDFOR
Therefore we always throttle when over the threshold otherwise we apply
the per bdi limits to decide if we throttle.
In the existing code clip_bdi_dirty_limit modified the bdi_thresh so
that it would not let a bdi dirty enough pages to go over the
dirty_threshold. All I've done is to bring the check of dirty_thresh up
into balance_dirty_pages.
So isn't this effectively the same ?
> I'd propose to remove the above 'if' and liberate the following three 'if's.
>
> > +
> > + if (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback <= bdi_thresh)
> > + break;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Throttle it only when the background writeback cannot
> > + * catch-up. This avoids (excessively) small writeouts
> > + * when the bdi limits are ramping up.
> > + */
> > + if (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback <
> > + (background_thresh + dirty_thresh) / 2)
> > + break;
> > +
> > + /* done enough? */
> > + if (pages_written >= write_chunk)
> > + break;
> > + }
> > + if (!bdi->dirty_exceeded)
> > + bdi->dirty_exceeded = 1;
> >
> > + /* Note: nr_reclaimable denotes nr_dirty + nr_unstable.
> > + * Unstable writes are a feature of certain networked
> > + * filesystems (i.e. NFS) in which data may have been
> > + * written to the server's write cache, but has not yet
> > + * been flushed to permanent storage.
> > + * Only move pages to writeback if this bdi is over its
> > + * threshold otherwise wait until the disk writes catch
> > + * up.
> > + */
> > + if (bdi_nr_reclaimable > bdi_thresh) {
> > + writeback_inodes(&wbc);
> > + pages_written += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
>
> > + if (wbc.nr_to_write == 0)
> > + continue;
>
> What's the purpose of the above 2 lines?
This is to try to replicate the existing code as closely as possible.
If writeback_inodes wrote write_chunk pages in one pass then skip to the
top of the loop to recheck the limits and decide if we can let the
application continue. Otherwise it's not making enough forward progress
due to congestion so do the congestion_wait & loop.
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
>
regards
Richard
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
