On Thu 01-10-09 22:54:43, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > You probably didn't understand my comment in the previous email. This is
> > > > too late to wakeup all the tasks. There are two limits - background_limit
> > > > (set to 5%) and dirty_limit (set to 10%). When amount of dirty data is
> > > > above background_limit, we start the writeback but we don't throttle tasks
> > > > yet. We start throttling tasks only when amount of dirty data on the bdi
> > > > exceeds the part of the dirty limit belonging to the bdi. In case of a
> > > > single bdi, this means we start throttling threads only when 10% of memory
> > > > is dirty. To keep this behavior, we have to wakeup waiting threads as soon
> > > > as their BDI gets below the dirty limit or when global number of dirty
> > > > pages gets below (background_limit + dirty_limit) / 2.
> > >
> > > Sure, but the design goal is to wakeup the throttled tasks in the
> > > __bdi_writeout_inc() path instead of here. As long as some (background)
> > > writeback is running, __bdi_writeout_inc() will be called to wakeup
> > > the tasks. This "unthrottle all on exit of background writeback" is
> > > merely a safeguard, since once background writeback (which could be
> > > queued by the throttled task itself, in bdi_writeback_wait) exits, the
> > > calls to __bdi_writeout_inc() is likely to stop.
> > The thing is: In the old code, tasks returned from balance_dirty_pages()
> > as soon as we got below dirty_limit, regardless of how much they managed to
> > write. So we want to wake them up from waiting as soon as we get below the
> > dirty limit (maybe a bit later so that they don't immediately block again
> > but I hope you get the point).
>
> Ah good catch! However overhitting the threshold by 1MB (maybe more with
> concurrent dirtiers) should not be a problem. As you said, that avoids the
> task being immediately blocked again.
>
> The old code does the dirty_limit check in an opportunistic manner. There were
> no guarantee. 2.6.32 further weakens it with the removal of congestion back off.
Sure, there are no guarantees but if we let threads sleep in
balance_dirty_pages longer than necessary it will have a performance impact
(application will sleep instead of doing useful work). So we should better
make sure applications sleep as few as necessary in balance_dirty_pages.
> @@ -756,8 +811,11 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ
> * For background writeout, stop when we are below the
> * background dirty threshold
> */
> - if (args->for_background && !over_bground_thresh())
> + if (args->for_background && !over_bground_thresh()) {
> + while (bdi_writeback_wakeup(wb->bdi))
> + ; /* unthrottle all tasks */
> break;
> + }
Thus the check here should rather be
if (args->for_background && !over_dirty_limit())
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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
