2012/9/25, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>: > On Thu 20-09-12 16:44:22, Wu Fengguang wrote: >> On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 08:25:42AM -0400, Namjae Jeon wrote: >> > From: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> > >> > This patch is based on suggestion by Wu Fengguang: >> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/19/19 >> > >> > kernel has mechanism to do writeback as per dirty_ratio and >> > dirty_background >> > ratio. It also maintains per task dirty rate limit to keep balance of >> > dirty pages at any given instance by doing bdi bandwidth estimation. >> > >> > Kernel also has max_ratio/min_ratio tunables to specify percentage of >> > writecache to control per bdi dirty limits and task throttling. >> > >> > However, there might be a usecase where user wants a per bdi writeback >> > tuning >> > parameter to flush dirty data once per bdi dirty data reach a threshold >> > especially at NFS server. >> > >> > dirty_background_centisecs provides an interface where user can tune >> > background writeback start threshold using >> > /sys/block/sda/bdi/dirty_background_centisecs >> > >> > dirty_background_centisecs is used alongwith average bdi write >> > bandwidth >> > estimation to start background writeback. > The functionality you describe, i.e. start flushing bdi when there's > reasonable amount of dirty data on it, looks sensible and useful. However > I'm not so sure whether the interface you propose is the right one. > Traditionally, we allow user to set amount of dirty data (either in bytes > or percentage of memory) when background writeback should start. You > propose setting the amount of data in centisecs-to-write. Why that > difference? Also this interface ties our throughput estimation code (which > is an implementation detail of current dirty throttling) with the userspace > API. So we'd have to maintain the estimation code forever, possibly also > face problems when we change the estimation code (and thus estimates in > some cases) and users will complain that the values they set originally no > longer work as they used to. > > Also, as with each knob, there's a problem how to properly set its value? > Most admins won't know about the knob and so won't touch it. Others might > know about the knob but will have hard time figuring out what value should > they set. So if there's a new knob, it should have a sensible initial > value. And since this feature looks like a useful one, it shouldn't be > zero. > > So my personal preference would be to have bdi->dirty_background_ratio and > bdi->dirty_background_bytes and start background writeback whenever > one of global background limit and per-bdi background limit is exceeded. I > think this interface will do the job as well and it's easier to maintain in > future. Hi Jan. Thanks for review and your opinion. Hi. Wu. How about adding per-bdi - bdi->dirty_background_ratio and bdi->dirty_background_bytes interface as suggested by Jan? Thanks. > > Honza -- 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
