linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/5] writeback: per task dirty rate limit

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: <20110810034012.GD24486@localhost>
Date:	Wed, 10 Aug 2011 11:40:12 +0800
From:	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>,
	Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] writeback: per task dirty rate limit

On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 02:35:06AM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, 2011-08-06 at 16:44 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > 
> > Add two fields to task_struct.
> > 
> > 1) account dirtied pages in the individual tasks, for accuracy
> > 2) per-task balance_dirty_pages() call intervals, for flexibility
> > 
> > The balance_dirty_pages() call interval (ie. nr_dirtied_pause) will
> > scale near-sqrt to the safety gap between dirty pages and threshold.
> > 
> > XXX: The main problem of per-task nr_dirtied is, if 10k tasks start
> > dirtying pages at exactly the same time, each task will be assigned a
> > large initial nr_dirtied_pause, so that the dirty threshold will be
> > exceeded long before each task reached its nr_dirtied_pause and hence
> > call balance_dirty_pages(). 
> 
> Right, so why remove the per-cpu threshold? you can keep that as a bound
> on the number of out-standing dirty pages.

Right, I also have the vague feeling that the per-cpu threshold can
somehow backup the per-task threshold in case there are too many tasks.

> Loosing that bound is actually a bad thing (TM), since you could have
> configured a tight dirty limit and lock up your machine this way.

It seems good enough to only remove the 4MB upper limit for
ratelimit_pages, so that the per-cpu limit won't kick in too
frequently in typical machines.

  * Here we set ratelimit_pages to a level which ensures that when all CPUs are
  * dirtying in parallel, we cannot go more than 3% (1/32) over the dirty memory
  * thresholds before writeback cuts in.
- *
- * But the limit should not be set too high.  Because it also controls the
- * amount of memory which the balance_dirty_pages() caller has to write back.
- * If this is too large then the caller will block on the IO queue all the
- * time.  So limit it to four megabytes - the balance_dirty_pages() caller
- * will write six megabyte chunks, max.
- */
-
 void writeback_set_ratelimit(void)
 {
        ratelimit_pages = vm_total_pages / (num_online_cpus() * 32);
        if (ratelimit_pages < 16)
                ratelimit_pages = 16;
-       if (ratelimit_pages * PAGE_CACHE_SIZE > 4096 * 1024)
-               ratelimit_pages = (4096 * 1024) / PAGE_CACHE_SIZE;
 }

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/