| 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: <20110821034657.GA30747@localhost>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2011 11:46:58 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.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 Sat, Aug 20, 2011 at 03:00:37AM +0800, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> 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.
That's right.
> >
> > .............................................................................
> >
> > 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.
That's right so far. balance_drity_pages() needs to do dirty position
control, so used formula (5).
> 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
>
That's not true. It should still be formula (7) when
balance_drity_pages() considers pos_ratio.
> > 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?
It's bdi->dirty_ratelimit.
> - 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
Yes. Strictly speaking, the target value is (note the "==")
bdi->dirty_ratelimit == write_bw/N
> or
>
> write_bw
> bdi->dirty_ratelimit = previous_bdi->dirty_ratelimit * ------------- (10)
> dirty_rate
Both (9) and (10) are not true. The right form is
write_bw
balanced_rate = whatever_ratelimit_executed_in_balance_dirty_pages * ----------
dirty_rate
where
whatever_ratelimit_executed_in_balance_dirty_pages ~= bdi->dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio
bdi->dirty_ratelimit ~= balanced_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
(11) in itself is right. It's the exact form used in code.
> bdi->dirty_ratelimit is supposed to be keeping track of
> write bandwidth variations only.
Yes in a stable workload. Besides, if the number of dd tasks (N)
changed, dirty_ratelimit will adapt to new value (write_bw / N).
> And in turn task ratelimit will be
> driven by both bandwidth varation as well as pos_ratio variation.
That's right.
> 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.
In _concept_, bdi->dirty_ratelimit only depends on
whatever_ratelimit_executed_in_balance_dirty_pages.
Then, we try to estimate the latter with formula
whatever_ratelimit_executed_in_balance_dirty_pages ~= bdi->dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio
That is the main reason we want to limit the step size of bdi->dirty_ratelimit:
otherwise the above estimation will have big errors if bdi->dirty_ratelimit
has changed a lot during the past 200ms.
That's also the reason balanced_rate will have larger errors when
close to @limit: because there pos_ratio drops _quickly_ to 0, hence
the regular fluctuations in dirty pages will result in big
fluctuations in the _relative_ value of pos_ratio.
> 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.
Sorry for that. I can explain if you have more questions :)
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