On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 15:38 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 11:26:43PM -0600, Simon Jeons wrote:
> > On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 11:26 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Namjae,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why use bdi_stat_error here? What's the meaning of its comment "maximal
> > > > > > error of a stat counter"?
> > > > > Hi Simon,
> > > > >
> > > > > As you know bdi stats (BDI_RECLAIMABLE, BDI_WRITEBACK …) are kept in
> > > > > percpu counters.
> > > > > When these percpu counters are incremented/decremented simultaneously
> > > > > on multiple CPUs by small amount (individual cpu counter less than
> > > > > threshold BDI_STAT_BATCH),
> > > > > it is possible that we get approximate value (not exact value) of
> > > > > these percpu counters.
> > > > > In order, to handle these percpu counter error we have used
> > > > > bdi_stat_error. bdi_stat_error is the maximum error which can happen
> > > > > in percpu bdi stats accounting.
> > > > >
> > > > > bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
> > > > > -> This will give approximate value of BDI_RECLAIMABLE by reading
> > > > > previous value of percpu count.
> > > > >
> > > > > bdi_stat_sum(bdi, BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
> > > > > ->This will give exact value of BDI_RECLAIMABLE. It will take lock
> > > > > and add current percpu count of individual CPUs.
> > > > > It is not recommended to use it frequently as it is expensive. We
> > > > > can better use “bdi_stat” and work with approx value of bdi stats.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi Namjae, thanks for your clarify.
> > > >
> > > > But why compare error stat count to bdi_bground_thresh? What's the
> > >
> > > It's not comparing bdi_stat_error to bdi_bground_thresh, but rather,
> > > in concept, comparing bdi_stat (with error bound adjustments) to
> > > bdi_bground_thresh.
> > >
> > > > relationship between them? I also see bdi_stat_error compare to
> > > > bdi_thresh/bdi_dirty in function balance_dirty_pages.
> > >
> >
> > Hi Fengguang,
> >
> > > Here, it's trying to use bdi_stat_sum(), the accurate (however more
> > > costly) version of bdi_stat(), if the error would possibly be large:
> >
> > Why error is large use bdi_stat_sum and error is few use bdi_stat?
>
Thanks for your response Fengguang! :)
> It's the opposite. Please check this per-cpu counter routine to get an idea:
>
> /*
> * Add up all the per-cpu counts, return the result. This is a more accurate
> * but much slower version of percpu_counter_read_positive()
> */
> s64 __percpu_counter_sum(struct percpu_counter *fbc)
>
> > >
> > > if (bdi_thresh < 2 * bdi_stat_error(bdi)) {
> > > bdi_reclaimable = bdi_stat_sum(bdi, BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
> > > //...
> > > } else {
> > > bdi_reclaimable = bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
> > > //...
> > > }
> > >
The comment above these codes:
* In order to avoid the stacked BDI deadlock we need
* to ensure we accurately count the 'dirty' pages when
* the threshold is low.
Why your meaning threshold low is error large?
> > > Here the comment should have explained it well:
> > >
> > > * In theory 1 page is enough to keep the comsumer-producer
> > > * pipe going: the flusher cleans 1 page => the task dirties 1
> > > * more page. However bdi_dirty has accounting errors. So use
> >
> > Why bdi_dirty has accounting errors?
>
> Because it typically uses bdi_stat() to get the rough sum of the per-cpu
> counters.
>
> Thanks,
> Fengguang
>
> > > * the larger and more IO friendly bdi_stat_error.
> > > */
> > > if (bdi_dirty <= bdi_stat_error(bdi))
> > > break;
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Fengguang
> >
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>