| 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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:00:05 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: "Yan, Zheng" <zheng.z.yan@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/35] writeback: scale down max throttle bandwidth on
concurrent dirtiers
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 09:21:19AM +0800, Yan Zheng wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 10:46 PM, Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com> wrote:
> > This will noticeably reduce the fluctuaions of pause time when there are
> > 100+ concurrent dirtiers.
> >
> > The more parallel dirtiers (1 dirtier => 4 dirtiers), the smaller
> > bandwidth each dirtier will share (bdi_bandwidth => bdi_bandwidth/4),
> > the less gap to the dirty limit ((C-A) => (C-B)), the less stable the
> > pause time will be (given the same fluctuation of bdi_dirty).
> >
> > For example, if A drifts to A', its pause time may drift from 5ms to
> > 6ms, while B to B' may drift from 50ms to 90ms. It's much larger
> > fluctuations in relative ratio as well as absolute time.
> >
> > Fig.1 before patch, gap (C-B) is too low to get smooth pause time
> >
> > throttle_bandwidth_A = bdi_bandwidth .........o
> > | o <= A'
> > | o
> > | o
> > | o
> > | o
> > throttle_bandwidth_B = bdi_bandwidth / 4 .....|...........o
> > | | o <= B'
> > ----------------------------------------------+-----------+---o
> > A B C
> >
> > The solution is to lower the slope of the throttle line accordingly,
> > which makes B stabilize at some point more far away from C.
> >
> > Fig.2 after patch
> >
> > throttle_bandwidth_A = bdi_bandwidth .........o
> > | o <= A'
> > | o
> > | o
> > lowered max throttle bandwidth for B ===> * o
> > | * o
> > throttle_bandwidth_B = bdi_bandwidth / 4 .............* o
> > | | * o
> > ----------------------------------------------+-------+-------o
> > A B C
> >
> > Note that C is actually different points for 1-dirty and 4-dirtiers
> > cases, but for easy graphing, we move them together.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> > ---
> > mm/page-writeback.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-12-13 21:46:14.000000000 +0800
> > +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-12-13 21:46:15.000000000 +0800
> > @@ -587,6 +587,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
> > unsigned long background_thresh;
> > unsigned long dirty_thresh;
> > unsigned long bdi_thresh;
> > + unsigned long task_thresh;
> > unsigned long long bw;
> > unsigned long period;
> > unsigned long pause = 0;
> > @@ -616,7 +617,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
> > break;
> >
> > bdi_thresh = bdi_dirty_limit(bdi, dirty_thresh, nr_dirty);
> > - bdi_thresh = task_dirty_limit(current, bdi_thresh);
> > + task_thresh = task_dirty_limit(current, bdi_thresh);
> >
> > /*
> > * In order to avoid the stacked BDI deadlock we need
> > @@ -638,14 +639,23 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
> >
> > bdi_update_bandwidth(bdi, start_time, bdi_dirty, bdi_thresh);
> >
> > - if (bdi_dirty >= bdi_thresh || nr_dirty > dirty_thresh) {
> > + if (bdi_dirty >= task_thresh || nr_dirty > dirty_thresh) {
> > pause = MAX_PAUSE;
> > goto pause;
> > }
> >
> > + /*
> > + * When bdi_dirty grows closer to bdi_thresh, it indicates more
> > + * concurrent dirtiers. Proportionally lower the max throttle
> > + * bandwidth. This will resist bdi_dirty from approaching to
> > + * close to task_thresh, and help reduce fluctuations of pause
> > + * time when there are lots of dirtiers.
> > + */
> > bw = bdi->write_bandwidth;
> > -
> > bw = bw * (bdi_thresh - bdi_dirty);
> > + do_div(bw, bdi_thresh / BDI_SOFT_DIRTY_LIMIT + 1);
> > +
> > + bw = bw * (task_thresh - bdi_dirty);
> > do_div(bw, bdi_thresh / TASK_SOFT_DIRTY_LIMIT + 1);
>
> Maybe changing this line to "do_div(bw, task_thresh /
> TASK_SOFT_DIRTY_LIMIT + 1);"
> is more consistent.
I'll show you another consistency of "shape" :)
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/wfg/writeback/slides/light-dirtier-control-line.svg
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/wfg/writeback/slides/heavy-dirtier-control-line.svg
In the above two figures, the overall control lines for light/heavy
dirtier tasks have exactly the same shape -- it's merely shifted in
the X axis direction. So the current form is actually more simple.
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