Message-ID: <4D74CC5F.9070002@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date:	Mon, 07 Mar 2011 20:15:27 +0800
From:	Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>
CC:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Balbir Singh <balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Ryo Tsuruta <ryov@...inux.co.jp>,
	Hirokazu Takahashi <taka@...inux.co.jp>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] blk-throttle: async write throttling

Andrea Righi wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 07:44:49PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
>> Andrea Righi wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 03:31:11PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
>>>> Andrea Righi wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 04:47:05PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 02, 2011 at 02:28:30PM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 06:01:14PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 11:15:02AM +0100, Andrea Righi wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Overview
>>>>>>>>> ========
>>>>>>>>> Currently the blkio.throttle controller only support synchronous IO requests.
>>>>>>>>> This means that we always look at the current task to identify the "owner" of
>>>>>>>>> each IO request.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> However dirty pages in the page cache can be wrote to disk asynchronously by
>>>>>>>>> the per-bdi flusher kernel threads or by any other thread in the system,
>>>>>>>>> according to the writeback policy.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For this reason the real writes to the underlying block devices may
>>>>>>>>> occur in a different IO context respect to the task that originally
>>>>>>>>> generated the dirty pages involved in the IO operation. This makes the
>>>>>>>>> tracking and throttling of writeback IO more complicate respect to the
>>>>>>>>> synchronous IO from the blkio controller's perspective.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Proposed solution
>>>>>>>>> =================
>>>>>>>>> In the previous patch set http://lwn.net/Articles/429292/ I proposed to resolve
>>>>>>>>> the problem of the buffered writes limitation by tracking the ownership of all
>>>>>>>>> the dirty pages in the system.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This would allow to always identify the owner of each IO operation at the block
>>>>>>>>> layer and apply the appropriate throttling policy implemented by the
>>>>>>>>> blkio.throttle controller.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This solution makes the blkio.throttle controller to work as expected also for
>>>>>>>>> writeback IO, but it does not resolve the problem of faster cgroups getting
>>>>>>>>> blocked by slower cgroups (that would expose a potential way to create DoS in
>>>>>>>>> the system).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In fact, at the moment critical IO requests (that have dependency with other IO
>>>>>>>>> requests made by other cgroups) and non-critical requests are mixed together at
>>>>>>>>> the filesystem layer in a way that throttling a single write request may stop
>>>>>>>>> also other requests in the system, and at the block layer it's not possible to
>>>>>>>>> retrieve such informations to make the right decision.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A simple solution to this problem could be to just limit the rate of async
>>>>>>>>> writes at the time a task is generating dirty pages in the page cache. The
>>>>>>>>> big advantage of this approach is that it does not need the overhead of
>>>>>>>>> tracking the ownership of the dirty pages, because in this way from the blkio
>>>>>>>>> controller perspective all the IO operations will happen from the process
>>>>>>>>> context: writes in memory and synchronous reads from the block device.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The drawback of this approach is that the blkio.throttle controller becomes a
>>>>>>>>> little bit leaky, because with this solution the controller is still affected
>>>>>>>>> by the IO spikes during the writeback of dirty pages executed by the kernel
>>>>>>>>> threads.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Probably an even better approach would be to introduce the tracking of the
>>>>>>>>> dirty page ownership to properly account the cost of each IO operation at the
>>>>>>>>> block layer and apply the throttling of async writes in memory only when IO
>>>>>>>>> limits are exceeded.
>>>>>>>> Andrea, I am curious to know more about it third option. Can you give more
>>>>>>>> details about accouting in block layer but throttling in memory. So say 
>>>>>>>> a process starts IO, then it will still be in throttle limits at block
>>>>>>>> layer (because no writeback has started), then the process will write
>>>>>>>> bunch of pages in cache. By the time throttle limits are crossed at
>>>>>>>> block layer, we already have lots of dirty data in page cache and
>>>>>>>> throttling process now is already late?
>>>>>>> Charging the cost of each IO operation at the block layer would allow
>>>>>>> tasks to write in memory at the maximum speed. Instead, with the 3rd
>>>>>>> approach, tasks are forced to write in memory at the rate defined by the
>>>>>>> blkio.throttle.write_*_device (or blkio.throttle.async.write_*_device).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When we'll have the per-cgroup dirty memory accounting and limiting
>>>>>>> feature, with this approach each cgroup could write to its dirty memory
>>>>>>> quota at the maximum rate.
>>>>>> Ok, so this is option 3 which you have already implemented in this
>>>>>> patchset. 
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess then I am confused with option 2. Can you elaborate a little
>>>>>> more there.
>>>>> With option 3, we can just limit the rate at which dirty pages are
>>>>> generated in memory. And this can be done introducing the files
>>>>> blkio.throttle.async.write_bps/iops_device.
>>>>>
>>>>> At the moment in blk_throtl_bio() we charge the dispatched bytes/iops
>>>>> _and_ we check if the bio can be dispatched. These two distinct
>>>>> operations are now done by the same function.
>>>>>
>>>>> With option 2, I'm proposing to split these two operations and place
>>>>> throtl_charge_io() at the block layer in __generic_make_request() and an
>>>>> equivalent of tg_may_dispatch_bio() (maybe a better name would be
>>>>> blk_is_throttled()) at the page cache layer, in
>>>>> balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr():
>>>>>
>>>>> A prototype for blk_is_throttled() could be the following:
>>>>>
>>>>> bool blk_is_throttled(void);
>>>>>
>>>>> This means in balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr() we won't charge any
>>>>> bytes/iops to the cgroup, but we'll just check if the limits are
>>>>> exceeded. And stop it in that case, so that no more dirty pages can be
>>>>> generated by this cgroup.
>>>>>
>>>>> Instead at the block layer WRITEs will be always dispatched in
>>>>> blk_throtl_bio() (tg_may_dispatch_bio() will always return true), but
>>>>> the throtl_charge_io() would charge the cost of the IO operation to the
>>>>> right cgroup.
>>>>>
>>>>> To summarize:
>>>>>
>>>>> __generic_make_request():
>>>>> 	blk_throtl_bio(q, &bio);
>>>>>
>>>>> balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr():
>>>>> 	if (blk_is_throttled())
>>>>> 		// add the current task into a per-group wait queue and
>>>>> 		// wake up once this cgroup meets its quota
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>> Hi Andrea,
>>>>
>>>> This means when you throttle writes, the reads issued by this task are also throttled?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Gui
>>> Exactly, we're treating the throttling of READs and WRITEs in two
>>> different ways.
>>>
>>> READs will be always throttled synchronously in the
>>> __generic_make_request() -> blk_throtl_bio() path.
>> Andrea，
>>
>> I means If the task exceeds write limit, this task will be put to sleep, right?
>> So It doesn't get a chance to issue read requests.
> 
> Oh yes, you're right. This could be a problem. OTOH I wouldn't like to
> introduce an additional queue to submit the write requests in the page
> cache and dispatch them asyncrhonously.
> 
> mmh... ideas?
> 

hmm, dispatching asynchronously will make things more complicated.
But writes blocking reads goes against the idea of page cache.
I'm not sure how to solve this...

Gui

> -Andrea
> 
--
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