linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/13] writeback: bdi write bandwidth estimation

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: <1290596732.2072.450.camel@laptop>
Date:	Wed, 24 Nov 2010 12:05:32 +0100
From:	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@...el.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/13] writeback: bdi write bandwidth estimation

On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 12:27 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> +void bdi_update_write_bandwidth(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
> +                               unsigned long *bw_time,
> +                               s64 *bw_written)
> +{
> +       unsigned long written;
> +       unsigned long elapsed;
> +       unsigned long bw;
> +       unsigned long w;
> +
> +       if (*bw_written == 0)
> +               goto snapshot;
> +
> +       elapsed = jiffies - *bw_time;
> +       if (elapsed < HZ/100)
> +               return;
> +
> +       /*
> +        * When there lots of tasks throttled in balance_dirty_pages(), they
> +        * will each try to update the bandwidth for the same period, making
> +        * the bandwidth drift much faster than the desired rate (as in the
> +        * single dirtier case). So do some rate limiting.
> +        */
> +       if (jiffies - bdi->write_bandwidth_update_time < elapsed)
> +               goto snapshot;

Why this goto snapshot and not simply return? This is the second call
(bdi_update_bandwidth equivalent).

If you were to leave the old bw_written/bw_time in place the next loop
around in wb_writeback() would see a larger delta..

I guess this funny loop in wb_writeback() is also the reason you've got
a single function and not the get/update like separation

> +       written = percpu_counter_read(&bdi->bdi_stat[BDI_WRITTEN]) - *bw_written;
> +       bw = (HZ * PAGE_CACHE_SIZE * written + elapsed/2) / elapsed;
> +       w = min(elapsed / (HZ/100), 128UL);
> +       bdi->write_bandwidth = (bdi->write_bandwidth * (1024-w) + bw * w) >> 10;
> +       bdi->write_bandwidth_update_time = jiffies;
> +snapshot:
> +       *bw_written = percpu_counter_read(&bdi->bdi_stat[BDI_WRITTEN]);
> +       *bw_time = jiffies;
> +} 
--
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/