| 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: <89b83c00-1117-d114-2c23-7b03fc22966e@easystack.cn>
Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2020 10:27:44 +0800
From: Dongsheng Yang <dongsheng.yang@...ystack.cn>
To: Dongdong Tao <tdd21151186@...il.com>, colyli@...e.de
Cc: gavin.guo@...onical.com, gerald.yang@...onical.com,
trent.lloyd@...onical.com,
dongdong tao <dongdong.tao@...onical.com>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
"open list:BCACHE (BLOCK LAYER CACHE)" <linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcache: consider the fragmentation when update the
writeback rate
在 2020/11/3 星期二 下午 8:42, Dongdong Tao 写道:
> From: dongdong tao <dongdong.tao@...onical.com>
>
> Current way to calculate the writeback rate only considered the
> dirty sectors, this usually works fine when the fragmentation
> is not high, but it will give us unreasonable small rate when
> we are under a situation that very few dirty sectors consumed
> a lot dirty buckets. In some case, the dirty bucekts can reached
> to CUTOFF_WRITEBACK_SYNC while the dirty data(sectors) noteven
> reached the writeback_percent, the writeback rate will still
> be the minimum value (4k), thus it will cause all the writes to be
> stucked in a non-writeback mode because of the slow writeback.
>
> This patch will try to accelerate the writeback rate when the
> fragmentation is high. It calculate the propotional_scaled value
> based on below:
> (dirty_sectors / writeback_rate_p_term_inverse) * fragment
> As we can see, the higher fragmentation will result a larger
> proportional_scaled value, thus cause a larger writeback rate.
> The fragment value is calculated based on below:
> (dirty_buckets * bucket_size) / dirty_sectors
> If you think about it, the value of fragment will be always
> inside [1, bucket_size].
>
> This patch only considers the fragmentation when the number of
> dirty_buckets reached to a dirty threshold(configurable by
> writeback_fragment_percent, default is 50), so bcache will
> remain the original behaviour before the dirty buckets reached
> the threshold.
>
> Signed-off-by: dongdong tao <dongdong.tao@...onical.com>
> ---
> drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h | 1 +
> drivers/md/bcache/sysfs.c | 6 ++++++
> drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h b/drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h
> index 1d57f48307e6..87632f7032b6 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h
> @@ -374,6 +374,7 @@ struct cached_dev {
> unsigned int writeback_metadata:1;
> unsigned int writeback_running:1;
> unsigned char writeback_percent;
> + unsigned char writeback_fragment_percent;
> unsigned int writeback_delay;
>
> uint64_t writeback_rate_target;
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/sysfs.c b/drivers/md/bcache/sysfs.c
> index 554e3afc9b68..69499113aef8 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/sysfs.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/sysfs.c
> @@ -115,6 +115,7 @@ rw_attribute(stop_when_cache_set_failed);
> rw_attribute(writeback_metadata);
> rw_attribute(writeback_running);
> rw_attribute(writeback_percent);
> +rw_attribute(writeback_fragment_percent);
Hi Dongdong and Coly,
What is the status about this patch? In my opinion, it is a problem
we need to solve,
but can we just reuse the parameter of writeback_percent, rather than
introduce a new writeback_fragment_percent?
That means the semantic of writeback_percent will act on dirty data
percent and dirty bucket percent.
When we found there are dirty buckets more than (c->nbuckets *
writeback_percent), start the writeback.
Thanx
Yang
> rw_attribute(writeback_delay);
> rw_attribute(writeback_rate);
>
> @@ -197,6 +198,7 @@ SHOW(__bch_cached_dev)
> var_printf(writeback_running, "%i");
> var_print(writeback_delay);
> var_print(writeback_percent);
> + var_print(writeback_fragment_percent);
> sysfs_hprint(writeback_rate,
> wb ? atomic_long_read(&dc->writeback_rate.rate) << 9 : 0);
> sysfs_printf(io_errors, "%i", atomic_read(&dc->io_errors));
> @@ -308,6 +310,9 @@ STORE(__cached_dev)
> sysfs_strtoul_clamp(writeback_percent, dc->writeback_percent,
> 0, bch_cutoff_writeback);
>
> + sysfs_strtoul_clamp(writeback_fragment_percent, dc->writeback_fragment_percent,
> + 0, bch_cutoff_writeback_sync);
> +
> if (attr == &sysfs_writeback_rate) {
> ssize_t ret;
> long int v = atomic_long_read(&dc->writeback_rate.rate);
> @@ -498,6 +503,7 @@ static struct attribute *bch_cached_dev_files[] = {
> &sysfs_writeback_running,
> &sysfs_writeback_delay,
> &sysfs_writeback_percent,
> + &sysfs_writeback_fragment_percent,
> &sysfs_writeback_rate,
> &sysfs_writeback_rate_update_seconds,
> &sysfs_writeback_rate_i_term_inverse,
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c b/drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c
> index 3c74996978da..34babc89fdf3 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c
> @@ -88,6 +88,26 @@ static void __update_writeback_rate(struct cached_dev *dc)
> int64_t integral_scaled;
> uint32_t new_rate;
>
> + /*
> + * We need to consider the number of dirty buckets as well
> + * when calculating the proportional_scaled, Otherwise we might
> + * have an unreasonable small writeback rate at a highly fragmented situation
> + * when very few dirty sectors consumed a lot dirty buckets, the
> + * worst case is when dirty_data reached writeback_percent and
> + * dirty buckets reached to cutoff_writeback_sync, but the rate
> + * still will be at the minimum value, which will cause the write
> + * stuck at a non-writeback mode.
> + */
> + struct cache_set *c = dc->disk.c;
> +
> + if (c->gc_stats.in_use > dc->writeback_fragment_percent && dirty > 0) {
> + int64_t dirty_buckets = (c->gc_stats.in_use * c->nbuckets) / 100;
> + int64_t fragment = (dirty_buckets * c->cache->sb.bucket_size) / dirty;
> +
> + proportional_scaled =
> + div_s64(dirty, dc->writeback_rate_p_term_inverse) * (fragment);
> + }
> +
> if ((error < 0 && dc->writeback_rate_integral > 0) ||
> (error > 0 && time_before64(local_clock(),
> dc->writeback_rate.next + NSEC_PER_MSEC))) {
> @@ -969,6 +989,7 @@ void bch_cached_dev_writeback_init(struct cached_dev *dc)
> dc->writeback_metadata = true;
> dc->writeback_running = false;
> dc->writeback_percent = 10;
> + dc->writeback_fragment_percent = 50;
> dc->writeback_delay = 30;
> atomic_long_set(&dc->writeback_rate.rate, 1024);
> dc->writeback_rate_minimum = 8;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists