On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 11:02:08PM +0800, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 10:06:52PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > Mel,
> >
> > I tend to agree with the whole patchset except for this one.
> >
> > The worry comes from the fact that there are always the very possible
> > unevenly distribution of dirty pages throughout the LRU lists.
>
> It is pages under writeback that determines if throttling is considered
> not dirty pages. The distinction is important. I agree with you that if
> it was dirty pages that throttling would be considered too regularly.
Ah right, sorry for the rushed conclusion!
btw, I guess the vmscan will now progress faster due to the reduced
->pageout() and implicitly blocks in get_request_wait() on congested
IO queue.
> > This
> > patch works on local information and may unnecessarily throttle page
> > reclaim when running into small spans of dirty pages.
> >
>
> It's also calling wait_iff_congested() not congestion_wait(). This
> takes BDI congestion and zone congestion into account with this check.
>
> /*
> * If there is no congestion, or heavy congestion is not being
> * encountered in the current zone, yield if necessary instead
> * of sleeping on the congestion queue
> */
> if (atomic_read(&nr_bdi_congested[sync]) == 0 ||
> !zone_is_reclaim_congested(zone)) {
>
> So global information is being taken into account.
That's right.
> > One possible scheme of global throttling is to first tag the skipped
> > page with PG_reclaim (as you already do). And to throttle page reclaim
> > only when running into pages with both PG_dirty and PG_reclaim set,
>
> It's PG_writeback that is looked at, not PG_dirty.
>
> > which means we have cycled through the _whole_ LRU list (which is the
> > global and adaptive feedback we want) and run into that dirty page for
> > the second time.
> >
>
> This potentially results in more scanning from kswapd before it starts
> throttling which could consume a lot of CPU. If pages under writeback
> are reaching the end of the LRU, it's already the case that kswapd is
> scanning faster than pages can be cleaned. Even then, it only really
> throttles if the zone or a BDI is congested.
Yeah, the first round may already eat a lot of CPU power..
> Taking that into consideration, do you still think there is a big
> advantage to having writeback pages take another lap around the LRU
> that is justifies the expected increase in CPU usage?
Given that there are typically much fewer PG_writeback than PG_dirty
(except for btrfs which probably should be fixed), the current
throttle condition should be strong enough to avoid false positives.
I even start to worry on the opposite side -- it could be less
throttled than necessary when some LRU is full of dirty pages and
somehow the flusher failed to focus on those pages (hence there are no
enough PG_writeback to wait upon at all).
In this case it may help to do "wait on PG_dirty&PG_reclaim and/or
PG_writeback&PG_reclaim". But the most essential task is always to let
the flusher focus more on the pages, rather than the question of
to-sleep-or-not-to-sleep, which will either block the direct reclaim
tasks for arbitrary long time, or act even worse by busy burning the CPU
during the time.
Thanks,
Fengguang
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
