linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] writeback: balance_dirty_pages() shall write more than dirtied pages

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]

Message-Id: <1252596698.7205.59.camel@laptop>
Date:	Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:31:38 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] writeback: balance_dirty_pages() shall write
 more than dirtied pages

On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 23:14 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:56:04PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 21:21 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 08:57:42PM +0800, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 09:42:01AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 11:44:13PM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed 09-09-09 22:51:48, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > > > > Some filesystem may choose to write much more than ratelimit_pages
> > > > > > > before calling balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(). So it is safer to
> > > > > > > determine number to write based on real number of dirtied pages.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > The increased write_chunk may make the dirtier more bumpy.  This is
> > > > > > > filesystem writers' duty not to dirty too much at a time without
> > > > > > > checking the ratelimit.
> > > > > >   I don't get this. balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr() is called when we
> > > > > > dirty the page, not when we write it out. So a problem would only happen if
> > > > > > filesystem dirties pages by set_page_dirty() and won't call
> > > > > > balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(). But e.g. generic_perform_write()
> > > > > > and do_wp_page() takes care of that. So where's the problem?
> > > > > 
> > > > > It seems that btrfs_file_write() is writing in chunks of up to 1024-pages
> > > > > (1024 is the computed nrptrs value in a 32bit kernel). And it calls
> > > > > balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr() each time it dirtied such a chunk.
> > > > 
> > > > I can easily change this to call more often, but we do always call
> > > > balance_dirty_pages to reflect how much ram we've really sent down.
> > > 
> > > Btrfs is doing OK. 2MB/4MB looks like reasonable chunk sizes. The
> > > need-change part is balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(), hence this
> > > patch :)
> > 
> > I'm not getting it, it calls set_page_dirty() for each page, right? and
> > then it calls into balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(), that sounds
> > right. What is the problem with that?
> 
> It looks like btrfs_file_write() eventually calls
> __set_page_dirty_buffers() which in turn won't call
> balance_dirty_pages*(). This is why do_wp_page() calls
> set_page_dirty_balance() to do balance_dirty_pages*().
> 
> So btrfs_file_write() explicitly calls
> balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr() to get throttled.

Right, so what is wrong with than, and how does this patch fix that?

[ the only thing you have to be careful with is that you don't
excessively grow the error bound on the dirty limit ]

--
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/