Date:	Wed, 8 Dec 2010 12:04:58 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: enabling-gate for light dirtied bdi

On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 08:51:11AM +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 5 Dec 2010 14:44:30 +0800
> Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> 
> > I noticed that my NFSROOT test system goes slow responding when there
> > is heavy dd to a local disk. Traces show that the NFSROOT's bdi_limit
> > is near 0 and many tasks in the system are repeatedly stuck in
> > balance_dirty_pages().
> > 
> > There are two related problems:
> > 
> > - light dirtiers at one device (more often than not the rootfs) get
> >   heavily impacted by heavy dirtiers on another independent device
> > 
> > - the light dirtied device does heavy throttling because bdi_limit=0,
> >   and the heavy throttling may in turn withhold its bdi_limit in 0 as
> >   it cannot dirty fast enough to grow up the bdi's proportional weight.
> > 
> > Fix it by introducing some "low pass" gate, which is a small (<=8MB)
> > value reserved by others and can be safely "stole" from the current
> > global dirty margin.  It does not need to be big to help the bdi gain
> > its initial weight.
> > 
> 
> The changelog refers to something called "bdi_limit".  But there is
> no such thing.  It occurs nowhere in the Linux tree and it has never
> before been used in a changelog.
>
> Can we please use carefully-chosen terminology and make sure that
> everyone can easily understand what the terms are referring to?
> 
> I'm assuming from context that you've created a new term to refer to
> the bdi_dirty_limit() return value for this bdi.
 
Yes it would be much better to use
bdi_dirty_limit()/global_dirty_limit() in the changelog.

> And ... oh geeze, you made me look at the code.  Grumbles forthcoming.
> 
> > 
> > Peter, I suspect this will do good for 2.6.37. Please help review, thanks!
> > 
> >  include/linux/writeback.h |    3 ++-
> >  mm/backing-dev.c          |    2 +-
> >  mm/page-writeback.c       |   23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > --- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c	2010-12-05 14:29:24.000000000 +0800
> > +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c	2010-12-05 14:31:39.000000000 +0800
> > @@ -444,7 +444,9 @@ void global_dirty_limits(unsigned long *
> >   * The bdi's share of dirty limit will be adapting to its throughput and
> >   * bounded by the bdi->min_ratio and/or bdi->max_ratio parameters, if set.
> >   */
> > -unsigned long bdi_dirty_limit(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, unsigned long dirty)
> > +unsigned long bdi_dirty_limit(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
> > +			      unsigned long dirty,
> > +			      unsigned long dirty_pages)
> 
> Forgot to update the bdi_dirty_limit() kerneldoc.
>
> While you're there, please document the bdi_dirty_limit() return value.
 
OK, done.

> <looks>
> 
> It mentions "100" a  lot.  ah-hah!  It returns a 0..99 percentage!

Yeah, you got it. To be frank I don't care much about (or even like)
that lose of precision, because I'm glad to see some safety margin
between the bdi and global dirty limits, so that one bdi's limit is
slightly exceeded, it won't slow down the whole system.

> <looks further>
> 
> No, ratelimit_pages() compares it with a variable called dirty_pages,
> so it returns an absolute number of pages!

Yes bdi_dirty_limit() returns the number of pages allowed to
dirty/writeback.

> But maybe ratelimit_pages() is buggy.
> 
> <looks further>
> 
> balance_dirty_pages() passes the bdi_dirty_limit() return value to
> task_dirty_limit() which secretly takes a number-of-pages arg and
> secretly returns a number-of-pages return value.

To be precise, bdi_dirty_limit() takes the global limit and return a
lower value, task_dirty_limit() in turn takes the bdi limit and return
a more lowered value.

> So I will pronounce with moderate confidence that bdi_dirty_limit()
> returns a page count!
> 
> See what I mean?  It shouldn't be that hard!

Yeah sorry for that. I made it easy in the updated patch :)

> >  {
> >  	u64 bdi_dirty;
> >  	long numerator, denominator;
> > @@ -459,6 +461,22 @@ unsigned long bdi_dirty_limit(struct bac
> >  	do_div(bdi_dirty, denominator);
> >  
> >  	bdi_dirty += (dirty * bdi->min_ratio) / 100;
> > +
> > +	/*
> > +	 * There is a chicken and egg problem: when bdi A (eg. /pub) is heavy
> > +	 * dirtied and bdi B (eg. /) is light dirtied hence has 0 dirty limit,
> > +	 * tasks writing to B always get heavily throttled and bdi B's dirty
> > +	 * limit may never be able to grow up from 0.
> > +	 *
> > +	 * So if we can dirty N more pages globally, honour N/2 to the bdi that
> > +	 * runs low. To provide such a global margin, we slightly decrease all
> > +	 * heavy dirtied bdi's limit.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (bdi_dirty < (dirty - dirty_pages) / 2 && dirty > dirty_pages)
> > +		bdi_dirty = (dirty - dirty_pages) / 2;
> > +	else
> > +		bdi_dirty -= min(bdi_dirty / 128, 8192ULL >> (PAGE_SHIFT-10));
> 
> Good lord, what have we done.
> 
> Ho hum.
> 
> This problem isn't specific to NFS, is it?  All backing-devices start

Sure, it applies to other xxxFS.

> out with a bdi_limit (which doesn't actually exist) of zero, yes?  And

Before doing any writes after system boot,  bdi_dirty_limit() used to
return zero. With this patch it will start from a much higher value of
global_dirty_limit()/2.

> this "bdi_limit" is a per-bdi state which is stored via some
> undescribed means in some or all of `completions',
> `write_bandwidth_update_time', `write_bandwidth', `dirty_exceeded',
> `min_ratio', `max_ratio' and `max_prop_frac'.  All of which are
> undocumented, naturally.

Not yet..

> 
> I admire your ability to work on this code, I really do.  I haven't
> looked at it in detail for a year or so and I am aghast at its opacity.

There may be hidden bugs due to its opacity. And I'm trying to address
this problem by adding trace points and visualizing the system dynamics.

I've been doing this for the past weeks, and it really helps. As you
can see from the graphs here

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/wfg/writeback/tests/512M/ext4-10dd-1M-8p-442M-2.6.37-rc4+-2010-12-08-09-19/

Up to now I've collected 2000+ graphs like the above one under different
situations. I saw lots of artful graphs that disclose how the IO-less
balance_dirty_pages() control algorithms and various FS may go wrong.
I'll release the v3 patchset soon, I'd say it simply won't be possible
without the help of the visualized trace data.

Making the algorithms right is my first priority, after that I'll
continue to document their behaviors.

> This makes it extremely hard to review any changes to it.  This is a
> problem.  And I don't think I can (or will) review this patch for these
> reasons.  My dummy is thoroughly spat out.

Yeah it's rather tricky. I rely heavily on tests. The v3 improvements
will be mostly test driven. The extensive tests and the data analyzing
absorbed all of my time these weeks.

> 
> And what's up with that 8192?  I assume it refers to pages?  32MB?  So
> if we're working on eight devices concurrently on a 256MB machine, what
> happens?

It's 8MB memory. For a 256MB machine, the global dirty limit will be
roughly 256MB * 20% / 2 = 25MB. The "divide by 2" assumes for such a
small memory system, there will be only half memory available for the
file page cache. So the 

        bdi_dirty -= min(bdi_dirty / 128, 8MB)

will be "bdi_dirty -= 25MB/8/128 = 190KB/8". The "/8" is because when
there are 8 active bdi's, each bdi will share only 1/8 global limit.
So the 8 bdi's will reserve (190KB/8)*8 = 190KB in total. You see this
number won't grow large when there comes more bdi's.

But sure, for a really large machine (over 128*8MB/20%=5GB),

        bdi_dirty -= min(bdi_dirty / 128, 8MB)

may become "bdi_dirty -= 8MB". In this case the reserved memory will
increase with more bdi's, but there are still bounds:

        mem     total reservation
        <5GB    mem/128
        5GB      8MB for any number of bdi's
        10GB    16MB when there are >=2 bdi's
        20GB    32MB when there are >=4 bdi's
        ...

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists