Re: [PATCH 15/18] writeback: charge leaked page dirties to active tasks
From: Wu Fengguang <hidden>
Date: 2011-09-07 09:37:12
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, lkml
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 08:17:42AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
On Sun 04-09-11 09:53:20, Wu Fengguang wrote:quoted
It's a years long problem that a large number of short-lived dirtiers (eg. gcc instances in a fast kernel build) may starve long-run dirtiers (eg. dd) as well as pushing the dirty pages to the global hard limit.I don't think it's years long problem. When we do per-cpu ratelimiting, short lived processes have the same chance (proportional to the number of pages dirtied) of hitting balance_dirty_pages() as long-run dirtiers have.
You are right in that all tasks will hit balance_dirty_pages(). However the caveat is, short lived tasks will see higher task_bdi_thresh and hence immediately break out of the loop based on condition !dirty_exceeded.
So this problem seems to be introduced by your per task dirty ratelimiting? But given that you kept per-cpu ratelimiting in the end, is this still an issue?
The per-cpu ratelimit now (see "writeback: per task dirty rate limit") only serves to backup the per-task ratelimit in case the latter fails. In particular, the per-cpu thresh will typically be much higher than the per-task thresh and the per-cpu counter will be reset each time balance_dirty_pages() is called. So in practice the per-cpu thresh will hardly trigger balance_dirty_pages(), which is exactly the desired behavior: it will only kick in when the per-task thresh is not working effectively due to sudden start of too many tasks.
Do you have some numbers for this patch?
Good question! When trying to do so, I find it only works as expected after applying this fix (well the zero current->dirty_paused_when issue once hit my mind and unfortunately slip off later...):
@@ -1103,7 +1103,10 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a task_ratelimit = (u64)dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio >> RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT; period = (HZ * pages_dirtied) / (task_ratelimit | 1); - pause = current->dirty_paused_when + period - now; + if (current->dirty_paused_when) + pause = current->dirty_paused_when + period - now; + else + pause = period; /* * For less than 1s think time (ext3/4 may block the dirtier * for up to 800ms from time to time on 1-HDD; so does xfs,
The test case is to run one normal dd and two series of short lived dd's:
dd $DD_OPTS bs=${bs:-1M} if=/dev/zero of=$mnt/zero-$i &
(
file=$mnt/zero-append
touch $file
while test -f $file
do
dd $DD_OPTS oflag=append conv=notrunc if=/dev/zero of=$file bs=8k count=8
done
) &
(
file=$mnt/zero-append-2
touch $file
while test -f $file
do
dd $DD_OPTS oflag=append conv=notrunc if=/dev/zero of=$file bs=8k count=8
done
) &
The attached figures show the behaviors before/after patch. Without
patch, the dirty pages hits @limit and bdi->dirty_ratelimit hits 1;
with the patch, the position&rate balances are effectively restored.
Thanks,
Fengguang Attachments
- balance_dirty_pages-pages.png [image/png] 59240 bytes
- balance_dirty_pages-pages.png [image/png] 76771 bytes