On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon 14-03-11 20:27:33, Greg Thelen wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 2:10 PM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Mon 14-03-11 13:54:08, Vivek Goyal wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 10:43:30AM -0800, Greg Thelen wrote: >> >> > If the current process is in a non-root memcg, then >> >> > balance_dirty_pages() will consider the memcg dirty limits as well as >> >> > the system-wide limits. This allows different cgroups to have distinct >> >> > dirty limits which trigger direct and background writeback at different >> >> > levels. >> >> > >> >> > If called with a mem_cgroup, then throttle_vm_writeout() queries the >> >> > given cgroup for its dirty memory usage limits. >> >> > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Andrea Righi <arighi@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> > Signed-off-by: Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> > Acked-by: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> > Acked-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> > --- >> >> > Changelog since v5: >> >> > - Simplified this change by using mem_cgroup_balance_dirty_pages() rather than >> >> > cramming the somewhat different logic into balance_dirty_pages(). This means >> >> > the global (non-memcg) dirty limits are not passed around in the >> >> > struct dirty_info, so there's less change to existing code. >> >> >> >> Yes there is less change to existing code but now we also have a separate >> >> throttlig logic for cgroups. >> >> >> >> I thought that we are moving in the direction of IO less throttling >> >> where bdi threads always do the IO and Jan Kara also implemented the >> >> logic to distribute the finished IO pages uniformly across the waiting >> >> threads. >> > Yes, we'd like to avoid doing IO from balance_dirty_pages(). But if the >> > logic in cgroups specific part won't get too fancy (which it doesn't seem >> > to be the case currently), it shouldn't be too hard to convert it to the new >> > approach. >> >> Handling memcg hierarchy was something that was not trivial to implement in >> mem_cgroup_balance_dirty_pages. >> >> > We can talk about it at LSF but at least with my approach to IO-less >> > balance_dirty_pages() it would be easy to convert cgroups throttling to >> > the new way. With Fengguang's approach it might be a bit harder since he >> > computes a throughput and from that necessary delay for a throttled task >> > but with cgroups that is impossible to compute so he'd have to add some >> > looping if we didn't write enough pages from the cgroup yet. But still it >> > would be reasonable doable AFAICT. >> >> I am definitely interested in finding a way to merge these feature >> cleanly together. > What my patches do is that instead of calling writeback_inodes_wb() the > process waits for IO on enough pages to get completed. Now if we can tell > for each page against which cgroup it is accounted (and I believe we are > able to do so), we can as well properly account amount of pages completed > against a particular cgroup and thus wait for right amount of pages for > that cgroup to get written. The only difficult part is that for BDI I can > estimate throughput, set sleep time appropriately, and thus avoid > unnecessary looping checking whether pages have already completed or not. > With per-cgroup this is impossible (cgroups share the resource) so we'd have > to check relatively often... > >> >> Keeping it separate for cgroups, reduces the complexity but also forks >> >> off the balancing logic for root and other cgroups. So if Jan Kara's >> >> changes go in, it automatically does not get used for memory cgroups. >> >> >> >> Not sure how good a idea it is to use a separate throttling logic for >> >> for non-root cgroups. >> > Yeah, it looks a bit odd. I'd think that we could just cap >> > task_dirty_limit() by a value computed from a cgroup limit and be done >> > with that but I probably miss something... >> >> That is an interesting idea. When looking at upstream balance_dirty_pages(), >> the result of task_dirty_limit() is compared per bdi_nr_reclaimable and >> bdi_nr_writeback. I think we should be comparing memcg usage to memcg limits >> to catch cases where memcg usage is above memcg limits. >> Or am I missing something in your apporach? > Oh right. It was too late yesterday :). > >> > Sure there is also a different >> > background limit but that's broken anyway because a flusher thread will >> > quickly stop doing writeback if global background limit is not exceeded. >> > But that's a separate topic so I'll reply with this to a more appropriate >> > email ;) >> ;) I am also interested in the this bg issue, but I should also try >> to stay on topic. > I found out I've already deleted the relevant email and thus have no good > way to reply to it. So in the end I'll write it here: As Vivek pointed out, > you try to introduce background writeback that honors per-cgroup limits but > the way you do it it doesn't quite work. To avoid livelocking of flusher > thread, any essentially unbounded work (and background writeback of bdi or > in your case a cgroup pages on the bdi is in principle unbounded) has to > give way to other work items in the queue (like a work submitted by > sync(1)). Thus wb_writeback() stops for_background works if there are other > works to do with the rationale that as soon as that work is finished, we > may happily return to background cleaning (and that other work works for > background cleaning as well anyway). > > But with your introduction of per-cgroup background writeback we are going > to loose the information in which cgroup we have to get below background > limit. And if we stored the context somewhere and tried to return to it > later, we'd have the above problems with livelocking and we'd have to > really carefully handle cases where more cgroups actually want their limits > observed. > > I'm not decided what would be a good solution for this. It seems that > a flusher thread should check all cgroups whether they are not exceeding > their background limit and if yes, do writeback. I'm not sure how practical > that would be but possibly we could have a list of cgroups with exceeded > limits and flusher thread could check that? > > Honza > -- > Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > SUSE Labs, CR > mem_cgroup_balance_dirty_pages() queues a bdi work item which already includes a memcg that is available to wb_writeback() in '[PATCH v6 9/9] memcg: make background writeback memcg aware'. Background writeback checks the given memcg usage vs memcg limit rather than global usage vs global limit. If we amend this to requeue an interrupted background work to the end of the per-bdi work_list, then I think that would address the livelocking issue. To prevent a memcg writeback work item from writing irrelevant inodes (outside the memcg) then bdi writeback could call mem_cgroup_queue_io(memcg, bdi) to locate an inode to writeback for the memcg under dirty pressure. mem_cgroup_queue_io() would scan the memcg lru for dirty pages belonging to the particular bdi. If mem_cgroup_queue_io() is unable to find any dirty inodes for the bdi, then it would return an empty set. Then wb_writeback() would abandon background writeback because there is nothing useful to write back to that bdi. In patch 9/9, wb_writeback() calls mem_cgroup_bg_writeback_done() when writeback completes. mem_cgroup_bg_writeback_done() could check that cgroup is still over background thresh and use the memcg lru to select another bdi to start per-memcg bdi writeback on. This allows one queued per-memcg bdi background writeback work item to pass off to another bdi to continue per-memcg background writeback. Does this seem reasonable? Unfortunately the approach above would only queue a memcg's bg writes to one bdi at a time. Another way to approach the problem would be to have a per-memcg flusher thread that is able to queue inodes to multiple bdis concurrently. -- 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
