linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] writeback: balanced_rate cannot exceed write bandwidth

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:	Wed, 23 Nov 2011 21:17:09 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] writeback: balanced_rate cannot exceed write
 bandwidth

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 10:04:37PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 22-11-11 14:41:49, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 06:50:49AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Mon 21-11-11 21:03:43, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > Add an upper limit to balanced_rate according to the below inequality.
> > > > This filters out some rare but huge singular points, which at least
> > > > enables more readable gnuplot figures.
> > > > 
> > > > When there are N dd dirtiers,
> > > > 
> > > > 	balanced_dirty_ratelimit = write_bw / N
> > > > 
> > > > So it holds that
> > > > 
> > > > 	balanced_dirty_ratelimit <= write_bw
> > >   The change makes sense, but do we understand why there are such huge
> > > singular points? Are they due to errors in estimation of bandwidth or due
> > > to errors in dirtying rate computations (e.g. due to truncates), or
> > > something else?
> > 
> > Good point. I'll add this to the changelog:
> > 
> > The singular points originate from dirty_rate in the below formular:
> > 
> >         balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit * write_bw / dirty_rate
> > where
> >         dirty_rate = (number of page dirties in the past 200ms) / 200ms
> > 
> > In the extreme case, if all dd tasks suddenly get blocked on something 
> > else and hence no pages are dirtied at all, dirty_rate will be 0 and
> > balanced_dirty_ratelimit will be inf. This could happen in reality.
> > 
> > There won't be tiny singular points though, as long as the dirty pages
> > lie inside the dirty control area (above the freerun region).
> > Because there the dd tasks will be throttled by balanced_dirty_pages()
> > and won't be able to suddenly dirty much more pages than average.
>   OK, I see. Thanks for explanation.

I'd like to comment that these huge singular points is not a real
threat, since they are _guaranteed_ to be filtered out by these lines
in bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit():

         * |task_ratelimit - dirty_ratelimit| is used to limit the step size
         * and filter out the sigular points of balanced_dirty_ratelimit. Which
         * keeps jumping around randomly and can even leap far away at times
         * due to the small 200ms estimation period of dirty_rate (we want to
         * keep that period small to reduce time lags).
         */
        step = 0;
        if (dirty < setpoint) {
                x = min(bdi->balanced_dirty_ratelimit,
==>                      min(balanced_dirty_ratelimit, task_ratelimit));
                if (dirty_ratelimit < x)
                        step = x - dirty_ratelimit;
        } else {
                x = max(bdi->balanced_dirty_ratelimit,
                         max(balanced_dirty_ratelimit, task_ratelimit));
                if (dirty_ratelimit > x)
                        step = dirty_ratelimit - x;
        }

The caveat is, task_ratelimit which is based on the number of dirty
pages will never _suddenly_ fly away like balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
So any weirdly large balanced_dirty_ratelimit will be cut down to the
level of task_ratelimit.

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/