On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 04:32:14PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 16:24 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 04:09:25PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2009-09-22 at 16:05 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure how this patch stopped the "overshooting" behavior.
> > > > Maybe it managed to not start the background pdflush, or the started
> > > > pdflush thread exited because it found writeback is in progress by
> > > > someone else?
> > > >
> > > > - if (bdi_nr_reclaimable) {
> > > > + if (bdi_nr_reclaimable > bdi_thresh) {
> > >
> > > The idea is that we shouldn't move more pages from dirty -> writeback
> > > when there's not actually that much dirty left.
> >
> > IMHO this makes little sense given that pdflush will move all dirty
> > pages anyway. pdflush should already be started to do background
> > writeback before the process is throttled, and it is designed to sync
> > all current dirty pages as quick as possible and as much as possible.
>
> Not so, pdflush (or now the bdi writer thread thingies) should not
> deplete all dirty pages but should stop writing once they are below the
> background limit.
(add CC to fs people for more thoughts :)
> > > Now, I'm not sure about the > bdi_thresh part, I've suggested to maybe
> > > use bdi_thresh/2 a few times, but it generally didn't seem to make much
> > > of a difference.
> >
> > One possible difference is, the process may end up waiting longer time
> > in order to sync write_chunk pages and quit the throttle. This could
> > hurt the responsiveness of the throttled process.
>
> Well, that's all because this congestion_wait stuff is borken..
Yes congestion_wait is bad.. I do like the idea of lowering
bdi_thresh to help reduce the uncertainty of throttle time :)
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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
