Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: Is congestion broken?
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Lin Feng <linf@wangsu.com>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, corbet@lwn.net,
        mcgrof@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        keescook@chromium.org, mchehab+samsung@kernel.org,
        mgorman@techsingularity.net, vbabka@suse.cz, ktkhai@virtuozzo.com,
        hannes@cmpxchg.org, Omar Sandoval <osandov@fb.com>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
References: <20190917115824.16990-1-linf@wangsu.com>
 <20190917120646.GT29434@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20190918123342.GF12770@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <6ae57d3e-a3f4-a3db-5654-4ec6001941a9@wangsu.com>
 <20190919034949.GF9880@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <20190923111900.GH15392@bombadil.infradead.org>
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Message-ID: <45d8b7a6-8548-65f5-cccf-9f451d4ae3d4@kernel.dk>
Date:   Mon, 23 Sep 2019 13:38:23 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190923111900.GH15392@bombadil.infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 9/23/19 5:19 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> 
> Ping Jens?
> 
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 08:49:49PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 19, 2019 at 10:33:10AM +0800, Lin Feng wrote:
>>> On 9/18/19 20:33, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> I absolutely agree here. From you changelog it is also not clear what is
>>>> the underlying problem. Both congestion_wait and wait_iff_congested
>>>> should wake up early if the congestion is handled. Is this not the case?
>>>
>>> For now I don't know why, codes seem should work as you said, maybe I need to
>>> trace more of the internals.
>>> But weird thing is that once I set the people-disliked-tunable iowait
>>> drop down instantly, this is contradictory to the code design.
>>
>> Yes, this is quite strange.  If setting a smaller timeout makes a
>> difference, that indicates we're not waking up soon enough.  I see
>> two possibilities; one is that a wakeup is missing somewhere -- ie the
>> conditions under which we call clear_wb_congested() are wrong.  Or we
>> need to wake up sooner.
>>
>> Umm.  We have clear_wb_congested() called from exactly one spot --
>> clear_bdi_congested().  That is only called from:
>>
>> drivers/block/pktcdvd.c
>> fs/ceph/addr.c
>> fs/fuse/control.c
>> fs/fuse/dev.c
>> fs/nfs/write.c
>>
>> Jens, is something supposed to be calling clear_bdi_congested() in the
>> block layer?  blk_clear_congested() used to exist until October 29th
>> last year.  Or is something else supposed to be waking up tasks that
>> are sleeping on congestion?

Congestion isn't there anymore. It was always broken as a concept imho,
since it was inherently racy. We used the old batching mechanism in the
legacy stack to signal it, and it only worked for some devices.

-- 
Jens Axboe