linux-kernel - [PATCH] writeback: account IO throttling wait as iowait

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 9 Oct 2009 10:52:35 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	Myklebust Trond <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH] writeback: account IO throttling wait as iowait

On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 04:36:09PM +0800, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 08 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 09:58 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > 
> > > > How this runqueue->nr_iowait is handled now ?
> > > 
> > > Good question. io_schedule() has an old comment for throttling IO wait:
> > > 
> > >          * But don't do that if it is a deliberate, throttling IO wait (this task
> > >          * has set its backing_dev_info: the queue against which it should throttle)
> > >          */
> > >         void __sched io_schedule(void)
> > > 
> > > So it looks both Jens' and this patch behaves right in ignoring the
> > > iowait accounting for balance_dirty_pages() :)
> > 
> > Well it is a change in behaviour, and I think IOWAIT makes sense when
> > we're blocked due to io throttle..
> > 
> > Hmm?
> 
> Yep agree, if we're deliberately waiting on IO, it should count as
> iowait time.

Then let's revert to the old behavior :)

For one single cp, it increases iowait from 29% to 56%.

Before patch:

----total-cpu-usage---- -dsk/total- -net/total- ---paging-- ---system--
usr sys idl wai hiq siq| read  writ| recv  send|  in   out | int   csw
  0   4  64  28   0   3|   0     0 | 272k   10M|   0     0 |1854   863
  0   6  69  23   0   3|   0     0 | 249k   11M|   0     0 |1709   865
  0   6  64  27   0   4|   0     0 | 235k   10M|   0     0 |1807   788
  0   4  61  30   0   4|   0     0 | 271k   12M|   0     0 |1910   898
  0   4  72  21   0   4|   0     0 | 289k   13M|   0     0 |1832   905
  0   6  58  35   0   2|   0     0 | 252k   11M|   0     0 |1713   900
  0   4  54  38   0   4|   0     0 | 257k   11M|   0     0 |1777   841
  0   5  59  30   0   7|   0     0 | 270k   12M|   0     0 |1758   836

After patch:

----total-cpu-usage---- -dsk/total- -net/total- ---paging-- ---system--
usr sys idl wai hiq siq| read  writ| recv  send|  in   out | int   csw
  0   5  35  57   0   4|   0     0 | 255k   11M|   0     0 |1705   879
  0   4  38  53   0   4|   0     0 | 326k   14M|   0     0 |1940   980
  0   3  36  59   0   2|   0     0 | 291k   13M|   0     0 |1970   970
  0   4  28  66   0   2|   0     0 | 290k   13M|   0     0 |1805   928
  0   6  38  54   0   3|   0     0 | 230k   10M|   0     0 |1866   842
  0   5  44  49   0   4|   0     0 | 278k   12M|   0     0 |1808   868

Thanks,
Fengguang
---
writeback: account IO throttling wait as iowait

It makes sense to do IOWAIT when someone is blocked
due to IO throttle, as suggested by Kame and Peter.

There is an old comment for not doing IOWAIT on throttle,
however it has been mismatching the code for a long time.

If we stop accounting IOWAIT for 2.6.32, it could be an
undesirable behavior change. So restore the io_schedule.

CC: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
CC: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
---
 kernel/sched.c      |    3 ---
 mm/page-writeback.c |    3 ++-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

--- linux.orig/mm/page-writeback.c	2009-10-09 10:40:19.000000000 +0800
+++ linux/mm/page-writeback.c	2009-10-09 10:40:20.000000000 +0800
@@ -566,7 +566,8 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
 		if (pages_written >= write_chunk)
 			break;		/* We've done our duty */
 
-		schedule_timeout_interruptible(pause);
+		__set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
+		io_schedule_timeout(pause);
 
 		/*
 		 * Increase the delay for each loop, up to our previous
--- linux.orig/kernel/sched.c	2009-10-09 10:40:30.000000000 +0800
+++ linux/kernel/sched.c	2009-10-09 10:40:51.000000000 +0800
@@ -6720,9 +6720,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(yield);
 /*
  * This task is about to go to sleep on IO. Increment rq->nr_iowait so
  * that process accounting knows that this is a task in IO wait state.
- *
- * But don't do that if it is a deliberate, throttling IO wait (this task
- * has set its backing_dev_info: the queue against which it should throttle)
  */
 void __sched io_schedule(void)
 {
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/