On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:04:37PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 22-11-11 14:41:49, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:50:49AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Mon 21-11-11 21:03:43, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > Add an upper limit to balanced_rate according to the below inequality.
> > > > This filters out some rare but huge singular points, which at least
> > > > enables more readable gnuplot figures.
> > > >
> > > > When there are N dd dirtiers,
> > > >
> > > > balanced_dirty_ratelimit = write_bw / N
> > > >
> > > > So it holds that
> > > >
> > > > balanced_dirty_ratelimit <= write_bw
> > > The change makes sense, but do we understand why there are such huge
> > > singular points? Are they due to errors in estimation of bandwidth or due
> > > to errors in dirtying rate computations (e.g. due to truncates), or
> > > something else?
> >
> > Good point. I'll add this to the changelog:
> >
> > The singular points originate from dirty_rate in the below formular:
> >
> > balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit * write_bw / dirty_rate
> > where
> > dirty_rate = (number of page dirties in the past 200ms) / 200ms
> >
> > In the extreme case, if all dd tasks suddenly get blocked on something
> > else and hence no pages are dirtied at all, dirty_rate will be 0 and
> > balanced_dirty_ratelimit will be inf. This could happen in reality.
> >
> > There won't be tiny singular points though, as long as the dirty pages
> > lie inside the dirty control area (above the freerun region).
> > Because there the dd tasks will be throttled by balanced_dirty_pages()
> > and won't be able to suddenly dirty much more pages than average.
> OK, I see. Thanks for explanation.
I'd like to comment that these huge singular points is not a real
threat, since they are _guaranteed_ to be filtered out by these lines
in bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit():
* |task_ratelimit - dirty_ratelimit| is used to limit the step size
* and filter out the sigular points of balanced_dirty_ratelimit. Which
* keeps jumping around randomly and can even leap far away at times
* due to the small 200ms estimation period of dirty_rate (we want to
* keep that period small to reduce time lags).
*/
step = 0;
if (dirty < setpoint) {
x = min(bdi->balanced_dirty_ratelimit,
==> min(balanced_dirty_ratelimit, task_ratelimit));
if (dirty_ratelimit < x)
step = x - dirty_ratelimit;
} else {
x = max(bdi->balanced_dirty_ratelimit,
max(balanced_dirty_ratelimit, task_ratelimit));
if (dirty_ratelimit > x)
step = dirty_ratelimit - x;
}
The caveat is, task_ratelimit which is based on the number of dirty
pages will never _suddenly_ fly away like balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
So any weirdly large balanced_dirty_ratelimit will be cut down to the
level of task_ratelimit.
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
