linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 06/27] btrfs: lower the dirty balance poll interval

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: <20110304062217.GE25368@dastard>
Date:	Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:22:17 +1100
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	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>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/27] btrfs: lower the dirty balance poll interval

On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 02:45:11PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> Call balance_dirty_pages_ratelimit_nr() on every 32 pages dirtied.
> 
> Tests show that original larger intervals can easily make the bdi
> dirty limit exceeded on 100 concurrent dd.
> 
> CC: Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/file.c |    5 ++---
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> --- linux-next.orig/fs/btrfs/file.c	2011-03-02 20:15:19.000000000 +0800
> +++ linux-next/fs/btrfs/file.c	2011-03-02 20:35:07.000000000 +0800
> @@ -949,9 +949,8 @@ static ssize_t btrfs_file_aio_write(stru
>  	}
>  
>  	iov_iter_init(&i, iov, nr_segs, count, num_written);
> -	nrptrs = min((iov_iter_count(&i) + PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - 1) /
> -		     PAGE_CACHE_SIZE, PAGE_CACHE_SIZE /
> -		     (sizeof(struct page *)));
> +	nrptrs = min(DIV_ROUND_UP(iov_iter_count(&i), PAGE_CACHE_SIZE),
> +		     min(32UL, PAGE_CACHE_SIZE / sizeof(struct page *)));

You're basically hardcoding the maximum to 32 pages here, because
PAGE_CACHE_SIZE / sizeof(page *) is always going to be much larger
than 32.

This means that you are effectively neutering the large write
efficiencies of btrfs - you're reducing the delayed allocation sizes
from 512 * PAGE_CACHE_SIZE down to 32 * PAGE_CACHE_SIZE. This will
increase the overhead of the write process for btrfs for large IOs.

Also, I've got some multipage write modifications that allow 1024
pages at a time between mapping/allocation calls with XFS - once
again for improving the efficiencies of the extent
mapping/allocations in the write path. If the new writeback
throttling algorithms don't work with large numbers of pages being
copied in a single go, then that's a problem.

As it is, if 100 concurrent dd's can overrun the dirty limit w/ 512
pages at a time, then 1000 concurrent dd's w/ 32 pages at a time is
just as likely to overrun it, too. We support 4096 CPU systems, so a
few thousand concurrent writers is not out of the question. Hence I
don't think just reducing the number of pages between dirty balance
calls is a sufficient solution....

Cheers,

Dave..
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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/