On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 05:55:08PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > On Tue, Mar 01, 2011 at 01:22:11AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Fri 25-02-11 22:44:12, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 02:56:32AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > more subtle things like how the algorithm behaves for tasks that are not IO > > > > bound for most of the time (or do less IO). Any good metrics here? More > > > > things we could compare? > > > > > > For non IO bound tasks, there are fio job files that do different > > > dirty rates. I have not run them though, as the bandwidth based > > > algorithm obviously assigns higher bandwidth to light dirtiers :) > > Yes :) But I'd be interested how our algorithms behave in such cases... > > OK, will do more tests later. Just tested an fio job that starts one aggressive dirtier and three more tasks doing 2, 4, 8 MB/s writes, and the outputs are impressive :) In all tested filesystems, the three rate limited dirtiers are all running at their expected speed. They are not throttled at all because their dirty rates are still lower than the heaviest dirtier task. Here are the progress graphs. http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/wfg/writeback/dirty-throttling-v6/RATES-2-4-8/btrfs-fio-rates-128k-8p-2975M-2.6.38-rc6-dt6+-2011-03-01-20-45/balance_dirty_pages-task-bw.png http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/wfg/writeback/dirty-throttling-v6/RATES-2-4-8/ext2-fio-rates-128k-8p-2975M-2.6.38-rc6-dt6+-2011-03-01-20-58/balance_dirty_pages-task-bw.png http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/wfg/writeback/dirty-throttling-v6/RATES-2-4-8/ext3-fio-rates-128k-8p-2975M-2.6.38-rc6-dt6+-2011-03-01-20-33/balance_dirty_pages-task-bw.png http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/wfg/writeback/dirty-throttling-v6/RATES-2-4-8/ext4-fio-rates-128k-8p-2975M-2.6.38-rc6-dt6+-2011-03-01-20-39/balance_dirty_pages-task-bw.png http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/wfg/writeback/dirty-throttling-v6/RATES-2-4-8/ext4_wb-fio-rates-128k-8p-2975M-2.6.38-rc6-dt6+-2011-03-01-20-51/balance_dirty_pages-task-bw.png http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/wfg/writeback/dirty-throttling-v6/RATES-2-4-8/xfs-fio-rates-128k-8p-2975M-2.6.38-rc6-dt6+-2011-03-01-20-26/balance_dirty_pages-task-bw.png Except for ext4, the slope of the three lines are exactly 2, 4, 8 MB/s (the 2MB/s line is even a bit higher than expected) The below graph shows that ext4 is not actually throttling the task, as almost all "pause" fields are 0 or negative numbers. http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/wfg/writeback/dirty-throttling-v6/RATES-2-4-8/ext4_wb-fio-rates-128k-8p-2975M-2.6.38-rc6-dt6+-2011-03-01-20-51/balance_dirty_pages-pause.png So the abnormal increase of the slopes should be caused by the redirty events, as can also be confirmed by the larger and larger gaps between the dirtied pages and written pages. http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/wfg/writeback/dirty-throttling-v6/RATES-2-4-8/ext4-fio-rates-128k-8p-2975M-2.6.38-rc6-dt6+-2011-03-01-20-39/global_dirtied_written.png Thanks, Fengguang -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
