On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 05:34:09AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 13-07-11 16:02:58, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 01:06:05AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Mon 04-07-11 09:06:19, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jul 01, 2011 at 02:32:44AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > We set bdi->dirty_exceeded (and thus ratelimiting code starts to
> > > > > call balance_dirty_pages() every 8 pages) when a per-bdi limit is
> > > > > exceeded or global limit is exceeded. But per-bdi limit also depends
> > > > > on the task. Thus different tasks reach the limit on that bdi at
> > > > > different levels of dirty pages. The result is that with current code
> > > > > bdi->dirty_exceeded ping-ponged between 1 and 0 depending on which task
> > > > > just got into balance_dirty_pages().
> > > > >
> > > > > We fix the issue by clearing bdi->dirty_exceeded only when per-bdi amount
> > > > > of dirty pages drops below the threshold (7/8 * bdi_dirty_limit) where task
> > > > > limits already do not have any influence.
> > > >
> > > > The end result, I think, is that the dirty pages are kept more tightly
> > > > under control, with the average number a slightly lowered than before.
> > > > This reduces the risk to throttle light dirtiers and hence more
> > > > responsive. However it does introduce more overheads by enforcing
> > > > balance_dirty_pages() calls on every 8 pages.
> > > Yes. I think this was actually the original intention when the code was
> > > written.
> >
> > I'm still a bit nervous on the added overheads for the common 1 heavy
> > dirty case. Before patch, the 1 heavy dirty will normally clear
> > bdi->dirty_exceeded on leaving balance_dirty_pages(), so it doesn't
> > have the burden of rechecking the limit on every 8 pages.
> Yes, but if there is 1 heavy dirtier, task_min_dirty_limit() will be
> actually equal (or almost equal) to the dirty limit of that task. So that
> case won't be really different.
Good point! Sorry I didn't notice it.
> When we will be different is when there are two or more dirtying tasks.
> Then we originally cleared dirty_exceeded already at higher level of dirty
> pages so we stopped checking after every 8 dirtied pages earlier.
>
> > How about this minimal change?
> >
> > static unsigned long task_min_dirty_limit(unsigned long bdi_dirty)
> > {
> > - return bdi_dirty - bdi_dirty / TASK_LIMIT_FRACTION;
> > + return bdi_dirty - bdi_dirty / TASK_LIMIT_FRACTION / 4;
> > }
> >
> > A more complete version will involve changing the function name and
> > comment. But the basic rationales are,
> >
> > - there is no serious danger of dirty exceeding as long as there are
> > less than 4 heavy dirties
> >
> > - tasks dirtying close to 25% pages probably cannot be called light
> > dirtier and there is no need to protect such tasks
> The idea is interesting. The only problem is that we don't want to set
> dirty_exceeded too late so that heavy dirtiers won't push light dirtiers
> over their limits so easily due to ratelimiting. It did some computations:
> We normally ratelimit after 4 MB. Take a low end desktop these days. Say
> 1 GB of ram, 4 CPUs. So dirty limit will be ~200 MB and the area for task
> differentiation ~25 MB. We enter balance_dirty_pages() after dirtying
> num_cpu * ratelimit / 2 pages on average which gives 8 MB. So we should
> set dirty_exceeded at latest at bdi_dirty / TASK_LIMIT_FRACTION / 2 or
> task differentiation would have no effect because of ratelimiting.
>
> So we could change the limit to something like:
> bdi_dirty - min(bdi_dirty / TASK_LIMIT_FRACTION, ratelimit_pages *
> num_online_cpus / 2 + bdi_dirty / TASK_LIMIT_FRACTION / 16)
Good analyze!
> But I'm not sure setups where this would make difference are common...
I think I'd prefer the original simple patch given that the common
1-dirtier is not impacted.
Thanks,
Fengguang
> > > > > CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > CC: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > CC: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > CC: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > mm/page-writeback.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> > > > > 1 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > This is the patch fixing dirty_exceeded logic I promised you last week.
> > > > > I based it on current Linus's tree as it is a relatively direct fix so I
> > > > > expect it can be somewhere in the beginning of the patch series and merged
> > > > > relatively quickly. Can you please add it to your tree? Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > OK. I noticed that bdi_thresh is no longer used. What if we just
> > > > rename it? But I admit that the patch in its current form looks a bit
> > > > more clear in concept.
> > > You are right bdi_thresh is only used for computing task_bdi_thresh and
> > > min_task_bdi_thresh now. We could possibly eliminate that one variable but
> > > I guess compiler will optimize it away anyway and I find the code more
> > > legible when written this way...
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fengguang
> >
> > > > > diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
> > > > > index 31f6988..d8b395f 100644
> > > > > --- a/mm/page-writeback.c
> > > > > +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
> > > > > @@ -274,12 +274,13 @@ static inline void task_dirties_fraction(struct task_struct *tsk,
> > > > > * effectively curb the growth of dirty pages. Light dirtiers with high enough
> > > > > * dirty threshold may never get throttled.
> > > > > */
> > > > > +#define TASK_LIMIT_FRACTION 8
> > > > > static unsigned long task_dirty_limit(struct task_struct *tsk,
> > > > > unsigned long bdi_dirty)
> > > > > {
> > > > > long numerator, denominator;
> > > > > unsigned long dirty = bdi_dirty;
> > > > > - u64 inv = dirty >> 3;
> > > > > + u64 inv = dirty / TASK_LIMIT_FRACTION;
> > > > >
> > > > > task_dirties_fraction(tsk, &numerator, &denominator);
> > > > > inv *= numerator;
> > > > > @@ -290,6 +291,12 @@ static unsigned long task_dirty_limit(struct task_struct *tsk,
> > > > > return max(dirty, bdi_dirty/2);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +/* Minimum limit for any task */
> > > > > +static unsigned long task_min_dirty_limit(unsigned long bdi_dirty)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + return bdi_dirty - bdi_dirty / TASK_LIMIT_FRACTION;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > /*
> > > > > *
> > > > > */
> > > > > @@ -483,9 +490,12 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> > > > > unsigned long background_thresh;
> > > > > unsigned long dirty_thresh;
> > > > > unsigned long bdi_thresh;
> > > > > + unsigned long task_bdi_thresh;
> > > > > + unsigned long min_task_bdi_thresh;
> > > > > unsigned long pages_written = 0;
> > > > > unsigned long pause = 1;
> > > > > bool dirty_exceeded = false;
> > > > > + bool clear_dirty_exceeded = true;
> > > > > struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info;
> > > > >
> > > > > for (;;) {
> > > > > @@ -512,7 +522,8 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> > > > > break;
> > > > >
> > > > > bdi_thresh = bdi_dirty_limit(bdi, dirty_thresh);
> > > > > - bdi_thresh = task_dirty_limit(current, bdi_thresh);
> > > > > + min_task_bdi_thresh = task_min_dirty_limit(bdi_thresh);
> > > > > + task_bdi_thresh = task_dirty_limit(current, bdi_thresh);
> > > > >
> > > > > /*
> > > > > * In order to avoid the stacked BDI deadlock we need
> > > > > @@ -524,7 +535,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> > > > > * actually dirty; with m+n sitting in the percpu
> > > > > * deltas.
> > > > > */
> > > > > - if (bdi_thresh < 2*bdi_stat_error(bdi)) {
> > > > > + if (task_bdi_thresh < 2 * bdi_stat_error(bdi)) {
> > > > > bdi_nr_reclaimable = bdi_stat_sum(bdi, BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
> > > > > bdi_nr_writeback = bdi_stat_sum(bdi, BDI_WRITEBACK);
> > > > > } else {
> > > > > @@ -539,8 +550,11 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> > > > > * the last resort safeguard.
> > > > > */
> > > > > dirty_exceeded =
> > > > > - (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback > bdi_thresh)
> > > > > - || (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback > dirty_thresh);
> > > > > + (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback > task_bdi_thresh)
> > > > > + || (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback > dirty_thresh);
> > > > > + clear_dirty_exceeded =
> > > > > + (bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback <= min_task_bdi_thresh)
> > > > > + && (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback <= dirty_thresh);
> > > > >
> > > > > if (!dirty_exceeded)
> > > > > break;
> > > > > @@ -558,7 +572,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> > > > > * up.
> > > > > */
> > > > > trace_wbc_balance_dirty_start(&wbc, bdi);
> > > > > - if (bdi_nr_reclaimable > bdi_thresh) {
> > > > > + if (bdi_nr_reclaimable > task_bdi_thresh) {
> > > > > writeback_inodes_wb(&bdi->wb, &wbc);
> > > > > pages_written += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
> > > > > trace_wbc_balance_dirty_written(&wbc, bdi);
> > > > > @@ -578,7 +592,8 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> > > > > pause = HZ / 10;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > - if (!dirty_exceeded && bdi->dirty_exceeded)
> > > > > + /* Clear dirty_exceeded flag only when no task can exceed the limit */
> > > > > + if (clear_dirty_exceeded && bdi->dirty_exceeded)
> > > > > bdi->dirty_exceeded = 0;
> > > > >
> > > > > if (writeback_in_progress(bdi))
> > > > > --
> > > > > 1.7.1
> > > --
> > > Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> > > SUSE Labs, CR
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. 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>