On Thu 27-09-12 00:56:02, Wu Fengguang wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:23:06AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > 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. > > Yes, that bandwidth estimation is not all that (and in theory cannot > be made) reliable which may be a surprise to the user. Which make the > interface flaky. > > > 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. > > Agreed in principle. There seems be no reasonable defaults for the > centisecs-to-write interface, mainly due to its inaccurate nature, > especially the initial value may be wildly wrong on fresh system > bootup. This is also true for your proposed interfaces, see below. > > > 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. > > bdi->dirty_background_ratio, if I understand its semantics right, is > unfortunately flaky in the same principle as centisecs-to-write, > because it relies on the (implicitly estimation of) writeout > proportions. The writeout proportions for each bdi starts with 0, > which is even worse than the 100MB/s initial value for > bdi->write_bandwidth and will trigger background writeback on the > first write. Well, I meant bdi->dirty_backround_ratio wouldn't use writeout proportion estimates at all. Limit would be dirtiable_memory * bdi->dirty_backround_ratio. After all we want to start writeout to bdi when we have enough pages to reasonably load the device for a while which has nothing to do with how much is written to this device as compared to other devices. OTOH I'm not particularly attached to this interface. Especially since on a lot of today's machines, 1% is rather big so people might often end up using dirty_background_bytes anyway. > bdi->dirty_background_bytes is, however, reliable, and gives users > total control. If we export this interface alone, I'd imagine users > who want to control centisecs-to-write could run a simple script to > periodically get the write bandwith value out of the existing bdi > interface and echo it into bdi->dirty_background_bytes. Which makes > simple yet good enough centisecs-to-write controlling. > > So what do you think about exporting a really dumb > bdi->dirty_background_bytes, which will effectively give smart users > the freedom to do smart control over per-bdi background writeback > threshold? The users are offered the freedom to do his own bandwidth > estimation and choose not to rely on the kernel estimation, which will > free us from the burden of maintaining a flaky interface as well. :) That's fine with me. Just it would be nice if we gave bdi->dirty_background_bytes some useful initial value. Maybe like dirtiable_memory * dirty_background_ratio? Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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
