| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20110819190037.GJ18656@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:00:37 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Cc: "linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
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>,
Andrea Righi <arighi@...eler.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:54:06AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> Hi Vivek,
>
> > > + base_rate = bdi->dirty_ratelimit;
> > > + pos_ratio = bdi_position_ratio(bdi, dirty_thresh,
> > > + background_thresh, nr_dirty,
> > > + bdi_thresh, bdi_dirty);
> > > + if (unlikely(pos_ratio == 0)) {
> > > + pause = MAX_PAUSE;
> > > + goto pause;
> > > }
> > > + task_ratelimit = (u64)base_rate *
> > > + pos_ratio >> RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT;
> >
> > Hi Fenguaang,
> >
> > I am little confused here. I see that you have already taken pos_ratio
> > into account in bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit() and wondering why to take
> > that into account again in balance_diry_pages().
> >
> > We calculated the pos_rate and balanced_rate and adjusted the
> > bdi->dirty_ratelimit accordingly in bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit().
>
> Good question. There are some inter-dependencies in the calculation,
> and the dependency chain is the opposite to the one in your mind:
> balance_dirty_pages() used pos_ratio in the first place, so that
> bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit() have to use pos_ratio in the calculation
> of the balanced dirty rate, too.
>
> Let's return to how the balanced dirty rate is estimated. Please pay
> special attention to the last paragraphs below the "......" line.
>
> Start by throttling each dd task at rate
>
> task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 (1)
> (any non-zero initial value is OK)
>
> After 200ms, we measured
>
> dirty_rate = # of pages dirtied by all dd's / 200ms
> write_bw = # of pages written to the disk / 200ms
>
> For the aggressive dd dirtiers, the equality holds
>
> dirty_rate == N * task_rate
> == N * task_ratelimit
> == N * task_ratelimit_0 (2)
> Or
> task_ratelimit_0 = dirty_rate / N (3)
>
> Now we conclude that the balanced task ratelimit can be estimated by
>
> balanced_rate = task_ratelimit_0 * (write_bw / dirty_rate) (4)
>
> Because with (2) and (3), (4) yields the desired equality (1):
>
> balanced_rate == (dirty_rate / N) * (write_bw / dirty_rate)
> == write_bw / N
Hi Fengguang,
Following is my understanding. Please correct me where I got it wrong.
Ok, I think I follow till this point. I think what you are saying is
that following is our goal in a stable system.
task_ratelimit = write_bw/N (6)
So we measure the write_bw of a bdi over a period of time and use that
as feedback loop to modify bdi->dirty_ratelimit which inturn modifies
task_ratelimit and hence we achieve the balance. So we will start with
some arbitrary task limit say task_ratelimit_0, and modify that limit
over a period of time based on our feedback loop to achieve a balanced
system. And following seems to be the formula.
write_bw
task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 * ------- (7)
dirty_rate
Now I also understand that by using (2) and (3), you proved that
how (7) will lead to (6) and that is our deisred goal.
>
> .............................................................................
>
> Now let's revisit (1). Since balance_dirty_pages() chooses to execute
> the ratelimit
>
> task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0
> = dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (5)
>
So balance_drity_pages() chose to take into account pos_ratio() also
because for various reason like just taking into account only bandwidth
variation as feedback was not sufficient. So we also took pos_ratio
into account which in-trun is dependent on gloabal dirty pages and per
bdi dirty_pages/rate.
So we refined the formula for calculating a tasks's effective rate
over a period of time to following.
write_bw
task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 * ------- * pos_ratio (9)
dirty_rate
Is my understanding right so far?
> Put (5) into (4), we get the final form used in
> bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit()
>
> balanced_rate = (dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio) * (write_bw / dirty_rate)
>
> So you really need to take (dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio) as a single entity.
Now few questions.
- What is dirty_ratelimit in formula above?
- Is it wrong to understand the issue in following manner.
bdi->dirty_ratelimit is tracking write bandwidth variation on the bdi
and effectively tracks write_bw/N.
bdi->dirty_ratelimit = write_bw/N
or
write_bw
bdi->dirty_ratelimit = previous_bdi->dirty_ratelimit * ------------- (10)
dirty_rate
Hence a tasks's balanced rate from (9) and (10) is.
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (11)
So my understanding about (10) and (11) is wrong? if no, then question
comes that bdi->dirty_ratelimit is supposed to be keeping track of
write bandwidth variations only. And in turn task ratelimit will be
driven by both bandwidth varation as well as pos_ratio variation.
But you seem to be doing following.
bdi->dirty_ratelimit = adjust based on a cobination of bandwidth feedback
and pos_ratio feedback.
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (12)
So my question is that when task_ratelimit is finally being adjusted
based on pos_ratio feedback, why bdi->dirty_ratelimit also needs to
take that into account.
I know you have tried explaining it, but sorry, I did not get it. May
be give it another shot in a layman's terms and I might understand it.
Thanks
Vivek
--
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