On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 21:02:21 -0700
Greg Thelen <gthelen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:18 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
> <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:05:40 -0400
> > Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 01:43:08PM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote:
> >> > Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> >
> >> > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 09:12:17AM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote:
> >> > >> When the system is under background dirty memory threshold but a cgroup
> >> > >> is over its background dirty memory threshold, then only writeback
> >> > >> inodes associated with the over-limit cgroup(s).
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > > [..]
> >> > >> -static inline bool over_bground_thresh(void)
> >> > >> +static inline bool over_bground_thresh(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
> >> > >> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â struct writeback_control *wbc)
> >> > >> Â{
> >> > >> Â Â Â Â Âunsigned long background_thresh, dirty_thresh;
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Â Â Â Â Âglobal_dirty_limits(&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh);
> >> > >>
> >> > >> - Â Â Â Âreturn (global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> >> > >> - Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âglobal_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS) > background_thresh);
> >> > >> + Â Â Â Âif (global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> >> > >> + Â Â Â Â Â Âglobal_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS) > background_thresh) {
> >> > >> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âwbc->for_cgroup = 0;
> >> > >> + Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Âreturn true;
> >> > >> + Â Â Â Â}
> >> > >> +
> >> > >> + Â Â Â Âwbc->for_cgroup = 1;
> >> > >> + Â Â Â Âwbc->shared_inodes = 1;
> >> > >> + Â Â Â Âreturn mem_cgroups_over_bground_dirty_thresh();
> >> > >> Â}
> >> > >
> >> > > Hi Greg,
> >> > >
> >> > > So all the logic of writeout from mem cgroup works only if system is
> >> > > below background limit. The moment we cross background limit, looks
> >> > > like we will fall back to existing way of writting inodes?
> >> >
> >> > Correct. ÂIf the system is over its background limit then the previous
> >> > cgroup-unaware background writeback occurs. ÂI think of the system
> >> > limits as those of the root cgroup. ÂIf the system is over the global
> >> > limit than all cgroups are eligible for writeback. ÂIn this situation
> >> > the current code does not distinguish between cgroups over or under
> >> > their dirty background limit.
> >> >
> >> > Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> > > If yes, then from design point of view it is little odd that as long
> >> > > as we are below background limit, we share the bdi between different
> >> > > cgroups. The moment we are above background limit, we fall back to
> >> > > algorithm of sharing the disk among individual inodes and forget
> >> > > about memory cgroups. Kind of awkward.
> >> > >
> >> > > This kind of cgroup writeback I think will atleast not solve the problem
> >> > > for CFQ IO controller, as we fall back to old ways of writting back inodes
> >> > > the moment we cross dirty ratio.
> >> >
> >> > It might make more sense to reverse the order of the checks in the
> >> > proposed over_bground_thresh(): the new version would first check if any
> >> > memcg are over limit; assuming none are over limit, then check global
> >> > limits. ÂAssuming that the system is over its background limit and some
> >> > cgroups are also over their limits, then the over limit cgroups would
> >> > first be written possibly getting the system below its limit. ÂDoes this
> >> > address your concern?
> >>
> >> Do you treat root group also as any other cgroup? If no, then above logic
> >> can lead to issue of starvation of root group inode. Or unfair writeback.
> >> So I guess it will be important to treat root group same as other groups.
> >>
> >
> > As far as I can say, you should not place programs onto ROOT cgroups if you need
> > performance isolation.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > From the code, I think if the system hits dirty_ratio, "1" bit of bitmap should be
> > set and background writeback can work for ROOT cgroup seamlessly.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > -Kame
>
> Not quite. The proposed patches do not set the "1" bit (css_id of
> root is 1). mem_cgroup_balance_dirty_pages() (from patch 10/12)
> introduces the following balancing loop:
> + /* balance entire ancestry of current's mem. */
> + for (; mem_cgroup_has_dirty_limit(mem); mem =
> parent_mem_cgroup(mem)) {
>
> The loop terminates when mem_cgroup_has_dirty_limit() is called for
> the root cgroup. The bitmap is set in the body of the loop. So the
> root cgroup's bit (bit 1) will never be set in the bitmap. However, I
> think the effect is the same. The proposed changes in this patch
> (11/12) have background writeback first checking if the system is over
> limit and if yes, then b_dirty inodes from any cgroup written. This
> means that a small system background limit with an over-{fg or
> bg}-limit cgroup could cause other cgroups that are not over their
> limit to have their inodes written back. In an system-over-limit
> situation normal system-wide bdi writeback is used (writing inodes in
> b_dirty order). For those who want isolation, a simple rule to avoid
> this is to ensure that that sum of all cgroup background_limits is
> less than the system background limit.
>
Hmm, should we add the rule ?
How about disallowing to set dirty_ratio bigger than system's one ?
Thanks,
-Kame
--
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
