linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 03/10] writeback: Do not congestion sleep if there are no congested BDIs or significant writeback

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: <AANLkTimkSU5G1qO0JDp8An5ofM2BPoPY0SGUOuTvSuOL@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Sep 2010 18:48:10 +0900
From:	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
To:	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Linux Kernel List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/10] writeback: Do not congestion sleep if there are no
 congested BDIs or significant writeback

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 5:55 PM, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 12:37:44AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
>> > > > > > <SNIP>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > + * in sleeping but cond_resched() is called in case the current process has
>> > > > > > + * consumed its CPU quota.
>> > > > > > + */
>> > > > > > +long wait_iff_congested(struct zone *zone, int sync, long timeout)
>> > > > > > +{
>> > > > > > +   long ret;
>> > > > > > +   unsigned long start = jiffies;
>> > > > > > +   DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
>> > > > > > +   wait_queue_head_t *wqh = &congestion_wqh[sync];
>> > > > > > +
>> > > > > > +   /*
>> > > > > > +    * If there is no congestion, check the amount of writeback. If there
>> > > > > > +    * is no significant writeback and no congestion, just cond_resched
>> > > > > > +    */
>> > > > > > +   if (atomic_read(&nr_bdi_congested[sync]) == 0) {
>> > > > > > +           unsigned long inactive, writeback;
>> > > > > > +
>> > > > > > +           inactive = zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_FILE) +
>> > > > > > +                           zone_page_state(zone, NR_INACTIVE_ANON);
>> > > > > > +           writeback = zone_page_state(zone, NR_WRITEBACK);
>> > > > > > +
>> > > > > > +           /*
>> > > > > > +            * If less than half the inactive list is being written back,
>> > > > > > +            * reclaim might as well continue
>> > > > > > +            */
>> > > > > > +           if (writeback < inactive / 2) {
>> > > > >
>> > > > > I am not sure this is best.
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > I'm not saying it is. The objective is to identify a situation where
>> > > > sleeping until the next write or congestion clears is pointless. We have
>> > > > already identified that we are not congested so the question is "are we
>> > > > writing a lot at the moment?". The assumption is that if there is a lot
>> > > > of writing going on, we might as well sleep until one completes rather
>> > > > than reclaiming more.
>> > > >
>> > > > This is the first effort at identifying pointless sleeps. Better ones
>> > > > might be identified in the future but that shouldn't stop us making a
>> > > > semi-sensible decision now.
>> > >
>> > > nr_bdi_congested is no problem since we have used it for a long time.
>> > > But you added new rule about writeback.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Yes, I'm trying to add a new rule about throttling in the page allocator
>> > and from vmscan. As you can see from the results in the leader, we are
>> > currently sleeping more than we need to.
>>
>> I can see the about avoiding congestion_wait but can't find about
>> (writeback < incative / 2) hueristic result.
>>
>
> See the leader and each of the report sections entitled
> "FTrace Reclaim Statistics: congestion_wait". It provides a measure of
> how sleep times are affected.
>
> "congest waited" are waits due to calling congestion_wait. "conditional waited"
> are those related to wait_iff_congested(). As you will see from the reports,
> sleep times are reduced overall while callers of wait_iff_congested() still
> go to sleep. The reports entitled "FTrace Reclaim Statistics: vmscan" show
> how reclaim is behaving and indicators so far are that reclaim is not hurt
> by introducing wait_iff_congested().

I saw  the result.
It was a result about effectiveness _both_ nr_bdi_congested and
(writeback < inactive/2).
What I mean is just effectiveness (writeback < inactive/2) _alone_.
If we remove (writeback < inactive / 2) check and unconditionally
return, how does the behavior changed?

Am I misunderstanding your report in leader?

-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/