On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 04:37:42AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 17-11-11 19:59:14, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > The sleep based balance_dirty_pages() can pause at most MAX_PAUSE=200ms
> > on every 1 4KB-page, which means it cannot throttle a task under
> > 4KB/200ms=20KB/s. So when there are more than 512 dd writing to a
> > 10MB/s USB stick, its bdi dirty pages could grow out of control.
> >
> > Even if we can increase MAX_PAUSE, the minimal (task_ratelimit = 1)
> > means a limit of 4KB/s.
> >
> > They can eventually be safeguarded by the global limit check
> > (nr_dirty < dirty_thresh). However if someone is also writing to an
> > HDD at the same time, it'll get poor HDD write performance.
> >
> > We at least want to maintain good write performance for other devices
> > when one device is attacked by some "massive parallel" workload, or
> > suffers from slow write bandwidth, or somehow get stalled due to some
> > error condition (eg. NFS server not responding).
> >
> > For a stalled device, we need to completely block its dirtiers, too,
> > before its bdi dirty pages grow all the way up to the global limit and
> > leave no space for the other functional devices.
> This is a fundamental question - how much do you allow dirty cache of one
> device to grow when other devices are relatively idle? Every choice has
> advantages and disadvantages. If you allow device to occupy lot of the
> cache, you may later find yourself short on dirtiable memory when other
> devices become active. On the other hand allowing more dirty memory can
> improve IO pattern and thus writeout speed. So whatever choice we make,
> we should explain our choice somewhere in the code and stick to that...
The answer lies in bdi_thresh and will continue to be so with this patch :)
Basically we let active devices to grow its quota of dirty pages and
stalled/inactive devices to decrease its quota over time. That's the
backing rational for Peter's "floating proportions".
It works well except in the case of "an inactive disk suddenly goes
busy", where the initial quota may be too small. To mitigate this,
bdi_position_ratio() has the below line to raise a small bdi_thresh
when it's safe to do so, so that the disk get a reasonable large
initial quota for fast rampup:
bdi_thresh = max(bdi_thresh, (limit - dirty) / 8);
> > So change the loop exit condition to
> >
> > /*
> > * Always enforce global dirty limit; also enforce bdi dirty limit
> > * if the normal max_pause sleeps cannot keep things under control.
> > */
> > if (nr_dirty < dirty_thresh &&
> > (bdi_dirty < bdi_thresh || bdi->dirty_ratelimit > 1))
> > break;
> >
> > which can be further simplified to
> >
> > if (task_ratelimit)
> > break;
> Hmm, but if pos_ratio == 0, task_ratelimit is uninitialized... Generally,
Shy.. That's fixed by a recent commit 3a73dbbc9bb ("writeback: fix
uninitialized task_ratelimit") in Linus' tree.
> I would find it more robust to have there a test directly with numbers of
> dirty pages - then it would be independent of whatever changes we make in
> ratelimit computations in future.
In principle, task_ratelimit has to be 0 when over the global dirty
limit. But yeah the explicit check sounds more robust. I can add it
back when doing some more tricky ratelimit calculations (eg. for async
write IO controller).
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
