Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751353AbZIJPl1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:41:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750917AbZIJPl0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:41:26 -0400 Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:50061 "EHLO mga03.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750842AbZIJPlZ (ORCPT ); Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:41:25 -0400 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.44,271,1249282800"; d="scan'208";a="186200973" Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:41:16 +0800 From: Wu Fengguang To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Chris Mason , Jan Kara , Andrew Morton , Jens Axboe , Dave Chinner , Christoph Hellwig , Artem Bityutskiy , LKML , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] writeback: balance_dirty_pages() shall write more than dirtied pages Message-ID: <20090910154116.GA10856@localhost> References: <20090909145141.293229693@intel.com> <20090909150601.159061863@intel.com> <20090909154413.GC7949@duck.suse.cz> <20090910014201.GB10957@localhost> <20090910125742.GH5106@think> <20090910132154.GA6446@localhost> <1252594564.7205.36.camel@laptop> <20090910151458.GA10767@localhost> <1252596698.7205.59.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1252596698.7205.59.camel@laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3336 Lines: 66 On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:31:38PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 23:14 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:56:04PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 21:21 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 08:57:42PM +0800, Chris Mason wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 09:42:01AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 11:44:13PM +0800, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed 09-09-09 22:51:48, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > > > > > > Some filesystem may choose to write much more than ratelimit_pages > > > > > > > > before calling balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(). So it is safer to > > > > > > > > determine number to write based on real number of dirtied pages. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The increased write_chunk may make the dirtier more bumpy. This is > > > > > > > > filesystem writers' duty not to dirty too much at a time without > > > > > > > > checking the ratelimit. > > > > > > > I don't get this. balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr() is called when we > > > > > > > dirty the page, not when we write it out. So a problem would only happen if > > > > > > > filesystem dirties pages by set_page_dirty() and won't call > > > > > > > balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(). But e.g. generic_perform_write() > > > > > > > and do_wp_page() takes care of that. So where's the problem? > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that btrfs_file_write() is writing in chunks of up to 1024-pages > > > > > > (1024 is the computed nrptrs value in a 32bit kernel). And it calls > > > > > > balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr() each time it dirtied such a chunk. > > > > > > > > > > I can easily change this to call more often, but we do always call > > > > > balance_dirty_pages to reflect how much ram we've really sent down. > > > > > > > > Btrfs is doing OK. 2MB/4MB looks like reasonable chunk sizes. The > > > > need-change part is balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(), hence this > > > > patch :) > > > > > > I'm not getting it, it calls set_page_dirty() for each page, right? and > > > then it calls into balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(), that sounds > > > right. What is the problem with that? > > > > It looks like btrfs_file_write() eventually calls > > __set_page_dirty_buffers() which in turn won't call > > balance_dirty_pages*(). This is why do_wp_page() calls > > set_page_dirty_balance() to do balance_dirty_pages*(). > > > > So btrfs_file_write() explicitly calls > > balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr() to get throttled. > > Right, so what is wrong with than, and how does this patch fix that? > > [ the only thing you have to be careful with is that you don't > excessively grow the error bound on the dirty limit ] Then we could form a loop: btrfs_file_write(): dirty 1024 pages balance_dirty_pages(): write up to 12 pages (= ratelimit_pages * 1.5) in which the writeback rate cannot keep up with dirty rate, and the dirty pages go all the way beyond dirty_thresh. Sorry for writing such a vague changelog! Thanks, Fengguang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/