On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 02:56:40PM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 04:42:48PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote: > > The maximum number of dirty pages that exist in the system at any time > > is determined by a number of pages considered dirtyable and a > > user-configured percentage of those, or an absolute number in bytes. > > It's explanation of old approach. What do you mean? This does not change with this patch. We still have a number of dirtyable pages and a limit that is applied relatively to this number. > > This number of dirtyable pages is the sum of memory provided by all > > the zones in the system minus their lowmem reserves and high > > watermarks, so that the system can retain a healthy number of free > > pages without having to reclaim dirty pages. > > It's a explanation of new approach. Same here, this aspect is also not changed with this patch! > > But there is a flaw in that we have a zoned page allocator which does > > not care about the global state but rather the state of individual > > memory zones. And right now there is nothing that prevents one zone > > from filling up with dirty pages while other zones are spared, which > > frequently leads to situations where kswapd, in order to restore the > > watermark of free pages, does indeed have to write pages from that > > zone's LRU list. This can interfere so badly with IO from the flusher > > threads that major filesystems (btrfs, xfs, ext4) mostly ignore write > > requests from reclaim already, taking away the VM's only possibility > > to keep such a zone balanced, aside from hoping the flushers will soon > > clean pages from that zone. > > It's a explanation of old approach, again! > Shoudn't we move above phrase of new approach into below? Everything above describes the current behaviour (at the point of this patch, so respecting lowmem_reserve e.g. is part of the current behaviour by now) and its problems. And below follows a description of how the patch tries to fix it. > > Enter per-zone dirty limits. They are to a zone's dirtyable memory > > what the global limit is to the global amount of dirtyable memory, and > > try to make sure that no single zone receives more than its fair share > > of the globally allowed dirty pages in the first place. As the number > > of pages considered dirtyable exclude the zones' lowmem reserves and > > high watermarks, the maximum number of dirty pages in a zone is such > > that the zone can always be balanced without requiring page cleaning. > > > > As this is a placement decision in the page allocator and pages are > > dirtied only after the allocation, this patch allows allocators to > > pass __GFP_WRITE when they know in advance that the page will be > > written to and become dirty soon. The page allocator will then > > attempt to allocate from the first zone of the zonelist - which on > > NUMA is determined by the task's NUMA memory policy - that has not > > exceeded its dirty limit. > > > > At first glance, it would appear that the diversion to lower zones can > > increase pressure on them, but this is not the case. With a full high > > zone, allocations will be diverted to lower zones eventually, so it is > > more of a shift in timing of the lower zone allocations. Workloads > > that previously could fit their dirty pages completely in the higher > > zone may be forced to allocate from lower zones, but the amount of > > pages that 'spill over' are limited themselves by the lower zones' > > dirty constraints, and thus unlikely to become a problem. > > That's a good justification. > > > For now, the problem of unfair dirty page distribution remains for > > NUMA configurations where the zones allowed for allocation are in sum > > not big enough to trigger the global dirty limits, wake up the flusher > > threads and remedy the situation. Because of this, an allocation that > > could not succeed on any of the considered zones is allowed to ignore > > the dirty limits before going into direct reclaim or even failing the > > allocation, until a future patch changes the global dirty throttling > > and flusher thread activation so that they take individual zone states > > into account. > > > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Otherwise, looks good to me. > Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx> Thanks! _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
