linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] writeback: fix writeback cache thrashing

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, 04 Jan 2013 23:26:43 -0600
From:	Simon Jeons <simon.jeons@...il.com>
To:	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Wanpeng Li <liwanp@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
	Vivek Trivedi <t.vivek@...sung.com>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: fix writeback cache thrashing

On Sat, 2013-01-05 at 11:26 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> > > > Hi Namjae,
> > > >
> > > > Why use bdi_stat_error here? What's the meaning of its comment "maximal
> > > > error of a stat counter"?
> > > Hi Simon,
> > > 
> > > As you know bdi stats (BDI_RECLAIMABLE, BDI_WRITEBACK …) are kept in
> > > percpu counters.
> > > When these percpu counters are incremented/decremented simultaneously
> > > on multiple CPUs by small amount (individual cpu counter less than
> > > threshold BDI_STAT_BATCH),
> > > it is possible that we get approximate value (not exact value) of
> > > these percpu counters.
> > > In order, to handle these percpu counter error we have used
> > > bdi_stat_error. bdi_stat_error is the maximum error which can happen
> > > in percpu bdi stats accounting.
> > > 
> > > bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
> > >  -> This will give approximate value of BDI_RECLAIMABLE by reading
> > > previous value of percpu count.
> > > 
> > > bdi_stat_sum(bdi, BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
> > >  ->This will give exact value of BDI_RECLAIMABLE. It will take lock
> > > and add current percpu count of individual CPUs.
> > >    It is not recommended to use it frequently as it is expensive. We
> > > can better use “bdi_stat” and work with approx value of bdi stats.
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi Namjae, thanks for your clarify.
> > 
> > But why compare error stat count to bdi_bground_thresh? What's the
> 
> It's not comparing bdi_stat_error to bdi_bground_thresh, but rather,
> in concept, comparing bdi_stat (with error bound adjustments) to
> bdi_bground_thresh.
> 
> > relationship between them? I also see bdi_stat_error compare to
> > bdi_thresh/bdi_dirty in function balance_dirty_pages. 
> 

Hi Fengguang,

> Here, it's trying to use bdi_stat_sum(), the accurate (however more
> costly) version of bdi_stat(), if the error would possibly be large:

Why error is large use bdi_stat_sum and error is few use bdi_stat?

> 
>                 if (bdi_thresh < 2 * bdi_stat_error(bdi)) {
>                         bdi_reclaimable = bdi_stat_sum(bdi, BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
>                         //...
>                 } else {
>                         bdi_reclaimable = bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
>                         //...
>                 }
> 
> Here the comment should have explained it well:
> 
>                  * In theory 1 page is enough to keep the comsumer-producer
>                  * pipe going: the flusher cleans 1 page => the task dirties 1
>                  * more page. However bdi_dirty has accounting errors.  So use

Why bdi_dirty has accounting errors?

>                  * the larger and more IO friendly bdi_stat_error.
>                  */
>                 if (bdi_dirty <= bdi_stat_error(bdi))
>                         break;
> 
> 
> 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/