Message-ID: <CAKYAXd_=TkHM4s8hyyEZpkJCv3N7HOeXKxoEOpwigFYfR9+ReA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Sep 2012 15:00:18 +0900
From:	Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
	Vivek Trivedi <t.vivek@...sung.com>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] writeback: add dirty_background_centisecs per bdi variable

2012/9/27, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>:
> On Thu 27-09-12 00:56:02, Wu Fengguang wrote:
>> On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:23:06AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>> > On Thu 20-09-12 16:44:22, Wu Fengguang wrote:
>> > > On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 08:25:42AM -0400, Namjae Jeon wrote:
>> > > > From: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
>> > > >
>> > > > This patch is based on suggestion by Wu Fengguang:
>> > > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/19/19
>> > > >
>> > > > kernel has mechanism to do writeback as per dirty_ratio and
>> > > > dirty_background
>> > > > ratio. It also maintains per task dirty rate limit to keep balance
>> > > > of
>> > > > dirty pages at any given instance by doing bdi bandwidth
>> > > > estimation.
>> > > >
>> > > > Kernel also has max_ratio/min_ratio tunables to specify percentage
>> > > > of
>> > > > writecache to control per bdi dirty limits and task throttling.
>> > > >
>> > > > However, there might be a usecase where user wants a per bdi
>> > > > writeback tuning
>> > > > parameter to flush dirty data once per bdi dirty data reach a
>> > > > threshold
>> > > > especially at NFS server.
>> > > >
>> > > > dirty_background_centisecs provides an interface where user can
>> > > > tune
>> > > > background writeback start threshold using
>> > > > /sys/block/sda/bdi/dirty_background_centisecs
>> > > >
>> > > > dirty_background_centisecs is used alongwith average bdi write
>> > > > bandwidth
>> > > > estimation to start background writeback.
>> >   The functionality you describe, i.e. start flushing bdi when there's
>> > reasonable amount of dirty data on it, looks sensible and useful.
>> > However
>> > I'm not so sure whether the interface you propose is the right one.
>> > Traditionally, we allow user to set amount of dirty data (either in
>> > bytes
>> > or percentage of memory) when background writeback should start. You
>> > propose setting the amount of data in centisecs-to-write. Why that
>> > difference? Also this interface ties our throughput estimation code
>> > (which
>> > is an implementation detail of current dirty throttling) with the
>> > userspace
>> > API. So we'd have to maintain the estimation code forever, possibly
>> > also
>> > face problems when we change the estimation code (and thus estimates in
>> > some cases) and users will complain that the values they set originally
>> > no
>> > longer work as they used to.
>>
>> Yes, that bandwidth estimation is not all that (and in theory cannot
>> be made) reliable which may be a surprise to the user. Which make the
>> interface flaky.
>>
>> > Also, as with each knob, there's a problem how to properly set its
>> > value?
>> > Most admins won't know about the knob and so won't touch it. Others
>> > might
>> > know about the knob but will have hard time figuring out what value
>> > should
>> > they set. So if there's a new knob, it should have a sensible initial
>> > value. And since this feature looks like a useful one, it shouldn't be
>> > zero.
>>
>> Agreed in principle. There seems be no reasonable defaults for the
>> centisecs-to-write interface, mainly due to its inaccurate nature,
>> especially the initial value may be wildly wrong on fresh system
>> bootup. This is also true for your proposed interfaces, see below.
>>
>> > So my personal preference would be to have bdi->dirty_background_ratio
>> > and
>> > bdi->dirty_background_bytes and start background writeback whenever
>> > one of global background limit and per-bdi background limit is exceeded.
>> > I
>> > think this interface will do the job as well and it's easier to maintain
>> > in
>> > future.
>>
>> bdi->dirty_background_ratio, if I understand its semantics right, is
>> unfortunately flaky in the same principle as centisecs-to-write,
>> because it relies on the (implicitly estimation of) writeout
>> proportions. The writeout proportions for each bdi starts with 0,
>> which is even worse than the 100MB/s initial value for
>> bdi->write_bandwidth and will trigger background writeback on the
>> first write.
>   Well, I meant bdi->dirty_backround_ratio wouldn't use writeout proportion
> estimates at all. Limit would be
>   dirtiable_memory * bdi->dirty_backround_ratio.
>
> After all we want to start writeout to bdi when we have enough pages to
> reasonably load the device for a while which has nothing to do with how
> much is written to this device as compared to other devices.
>
> OTOH I'm not particularly attached to this interface. Especially since on a
> lot of today's machines, 1% is rather big so people might often end up
> using dirty_background_bytes anyway.
>
>> bdi->dirty_background_bytes is, however, reliable, and gives users
>> total control. If we export this interface alone, I'd imagine users
>> who want to control centisecs-to-write could run a simple script to
>> periodically get the write bandwith value out of the existing bdi
>> interface and echo it into bdi->dirty_background_bytes. Which makes
>> simple yet good enough centisecs-to-write controlling.
>>
>> So what do you think about exporting a really dumb
>> bdi->dirty_background_bytes, which will effectively give smart users
>> the freedom to do smart control over per-bdi background writeback
>> threshold? The users are offered the freedom to do his own bandwidth
>> estimation and choose not to rely on the kernel estimation, which will
>> free us from the burden of maintaining a flaky interface as well. :)
>   That's fine with me. Just it would be nice if we gave
> bdi->dirty_background_bytes some useful initial value. Maybe like
> dirtiable_memory * dirty_background_ratio?
Hi. Jan.
Global dirty_background_bytes default value is zero that means
flushing is started based on dirty_background_ratio and dirtiable
memory.
Is it correct to set per bdi default dirty threshold
(bdi->dirty_background_bytes) equal to global dirty threshold  -
dirtiable_memory * dirty_background_ratio ?
In my opinion, default setting for per bdi-> dirty_background_bytes
should be zero to avoid any confusion and any change in default
writeback behaviour.

Thanks.
>
> 								Honza
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> SUSE Labs, CR
>
--
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