sorry for the _very_ delayed review. > There are a number of cases where pages get cleaned but two of concern > to this patch are; > o When dirtying pages, processes may be throttled to clean pages if > dirty_ratio is not met. > o Pages belonging to inodes dirtied longer than > dirty_writeback_centisecs get cleaned. > > The problem for reclaim is that dirty pages can reach the end of the LRU if > pages are being dirtied slowly so that neither the throttling or a flusher > thread waking periodically cleans them. > > Background flush is already cleaning old or expired inodes first but the > expire time is too far in the future at the time of page reclaim. To mitigate > future problems, this patch wakes flusher threads to clean 4M of data - > an amount that should be manageable without causing congestion in many cases. > > Ideally, the background flushers would only be cleaning pages belonging > to the zone being scanned but it's not clear if this would be of benefit > (less IO) or not (potentially less efficient IO if an inode is scattered > across multiple zones). > > Signed-off-by: Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > mm/vmscan.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > 1 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/vmscan.c b/mm/vmscan.c > index 2d2b588..c4c81bc 100644 > --- a/mm/vmscan.c > +++ b/mm/vmscan.c > @@ -142,6 +142,18 @@ static DECLARE_RWSEM(shrinker_rwsem); > /* Direct lumpy reclaim waits up to five seconds for background cleaning */ > #define MAX_SWAP_CLEAN_WAIT 50 > > +/* > + * When reclaim encounters dirty data, wakeup flusher threads to clean > + * a maximum of 4M of data. > + */ > +#define MAX_WRITEBACK (4194304UL >> PAGE_SHIFT) > +#define WRITEBACK_FACTOR (MAX_WRITEBACK / SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX) > +static inline long nr_writeback_pages(unsigned long nr_dirty) > +{ > + return laptop_mode ? 0 : > + min(MAX_WRITEBACK, (nr_dirty * WRITEBACK_FACTOR)); > +} ?? As far as I remembered, Hannes pointed out wakeup_flusher_threads(0) is incorrect. can you fix this? > + > static struct zone_reclaim_stat *get_reclaim_stat(struct zone *zone, > struct scan_control *sc) > { > @@ -649,12 +661,14 @@ static noinline_for_stack void free_page_list(struct list_head *free_pages) > static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list, > struct scan_control *sc, > enum pageout_io sync_writeback, > + int file, > unsigned long *nr_still_dirty) > { > LIST_HEAD(ret_pages); > LIST_HEAD(free_pages); > int pgactivate = 0; > unsigned long nr_dirty = 0; > + unsigned long nr_dirty_seen = 0; > unsigned long nr_reclaimed = 0; > > cond_resched(); > @@ -748,6 +762,8 @@ static unsigned long shrink_page_list(struct list_head *page_list, > } > > if (PageDirty(page)) { > + nr_dirty_seen++; > + > /* > * Only kswapd can writeback filesystem pages to > * avoid risk of stack overflow > @@ -875,6 +891,18 @@ keep: > > list_splice(&ret_pages, page_list); > > + /* > + * If reclaim is encountering dirty pages, it may be because > + * dirty pages are reaching the end of the LRU even though the > + * dirty_ratio may be satisified. In this case, wake flusher > + * threads to pro-actively clean up to a maximum of > + * 4 * SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX amount of data (usually 1/2MB) unless > + * !may_writepage indicates that this is a direct reclaimer in > + * laptop mode avoiding disk spin-ups > + */ > + if (file && nr_dirty_seen && sc->may_writepage) > + wakeup_flusher_threads(nr_writeback_pages(nr_dirty)); Umm.. I don't think this guessing is so acculate. following is brief of current isolate_lru_pages(). static unsigned long isolate_lru_pages(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct list_head *src, struct list_head *dst, unsigned long *scanned, int order, int mode, int file) { for (scan = 0; scan < nr_to_scan && !list_empty(src); scan++) { __isolate_lru_page(page, mode, file)) if (!order) continue; /* * Attempt to take all pages in the order aligned region * surrounding the tag page. Only take those pages of * the same active state as that tag page. We may safely * round the target page pfn down to the requested order * as the mem_map is guarenteed valid out to MAX_ORDER, * where that page is in a different zone we will detect * it from its zone id and abort this block scan. */ for (; pfn < end_pfn; pfn++) { struct page *cursor_page; (snip) } (This was unchanged since initial lumpy reclaim commit) That said, merely order-1 isolate_lru_pages(ISOLATE_INACTIVE) makes pfn neighbor search. then, we might found dirty pages even though the page don't stay in end of lru. What do you think? > + > *nr_still_dirty = nr_dirty; > count_vm_events(PGACTIVATE, pgactivate); > return nr_reclaimed; > @@ -1315,7 +1343,7 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct zone *zone, > spin_unlock_irq(&zone->lru_lock); > > nr_reclaimed = shrink_page_list(&page_list, sc, PAGEOUT_IO_ASYNC, > - &nr_dirty); > + file, &nr_dirty); > > /* > * If specific pages are needed such as with direct reclaiming > @@ -1351,7 +1379,8 @@ shrink_inactive_list(unsigned long nr_to_scan, struct zone *zone, > count_vm_events(PGDEACTIVATE, nr_active); > > nr_reclaimed += shrink_page_list(&page_list, sc, > - PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC, &nr_dirty); > + PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC, file, > + &nr_dirty); > } > } > > -- > 1.7.1 > -- 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