[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090923014500.GA11076@localhost>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:45:00 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"richard@....demon.co.uk" <richard@....demon.co.uk>,
"jens.axboe@...cle.com" <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: regression in page writeback
On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 09:28:32AM +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 09:17:58 +0800 Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 08:54:52AM +0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 08:22:20 +0800 Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Jens' per-bdi writeback has another improvement. In 2.6.31, when
> > > > superblocks A and B both have 100000 dirty pages, it will first
> > > > exhaust A's 100000 dirty pages before going on to sync B's.
> > >
> > > That would only be true if someone broke 2.6.31. Did they?
> > >
> > > SYSCALL_DEFINE0(sync)
> > > {
> > > wakeup_pdflush(0);
> > > sync_filesystems(0);
> > > sync_filesystems(1);
> > > if (unlikely(laptop_mode))
> > > laptop_sync_completion();
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> > > the sync_filesystems(0) is supposed to non-blockingly start IO against
> > > all devices. It used to do that correctly. But people mucked with it
> > > so perhaps it no longer does.
> >
> > I'm referring to writeback_inodes(). Each invocation of which (to sync
> > 4MB) will do the same iteration over superblocks A => B => C ... So if
> > A has dirty pages, it will always be served first.
> >
> > So if wbc->bdi == NULL (which is true for kupdate/background sync), it
> > will have to first exhaust A before going on to B and C.
>
> But that works OK. We fill the first device's queue, then it gets
> congested and sync_sb_inodes() does nothing and we advance to the next
> queue.
So in common cases "exhaust" is a bit exaggerated, but A does receive
much more opportunity than B. Computation resources for IO submission
are unbalanced for A, and there are pointless overheads in rechecking A.
> If a device has more than a queue's worth of dirty data then we'll
> probably leave some of that dirty memory un-queued, so there's some
> lack of concurrency in that situation.
Good insight. That possibly explains one major factor of the
performance gains of Jens' per-bdi writeback.
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