2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-10-03 23:01:26 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-10-15 22:01:59 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-10-16 02:01:52 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-12-10 02:19:27 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-09-25 23:30:57 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-09-16 02:31:11 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2012-05-24 18:59:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2013-02-07 09:47:07 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2013-09-11 14:22:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-07-07 13:24:07 +10:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-09-11 14:22:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-19 22:18:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-12-06 13:17:17 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-29 11:22:30 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty position control
bdi_position_ratio() provides a scale factor to bdi->dirty_ratelimit, so
that the resulted task rate limit can drive the dirty pages back to the
global/bdi setpoints.
Old scheme is,
|
free run area | throttle area
----------------------------------------+---------------------------->
thresh^ dirty pages
New scheme is,
^ task rate limit
|
| *
| *
| *
|[free run] * [smooth throttled]
| *
| *
| *
..bdi->dirty_ratelimit..........*
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
+-------------------------------.-----------------------*------------>
setpoint^ limit^ dirty pages
The slope of the bdi control line should be
1) large enough to pull the dirty pages to setpoint reasonably fast
2) small enough to avoid big fluctuations in the resulted pos_ratio and
hence task ratelimit
Since the fluctuation range of the bdi dirty pages is typically observed
to be within 1-second worth of data, the bdi control line's slope is
selected to be a linear function of bdi write bandwidth, so that it can
adapt to slow/fast storage devices well.
Assume the bdi control line
pos_ratio = 1.0 + k * (dirty - bdi_setpoint)
where k is the negative slope.
If targeting for 12.5% fluctuation range in pos_ratio when dirty pages
are fluctuating in range
[bdi_setpoint - write_bw/2, bdi_setpoint + write_bw/2],
we get slope
k = - 1 / (8 * write_bw)
Let pos_ratio(x_intercept) = 0, we get the parameter used in code:
x_intercept = bdi_setpoint + 8 * write_bw
The global/bdi slopes are nicely complementing each other when the
system has only one major bdi (indicated by bdi_thresh ~= thresh):
1) slope of global control line => scaling to the control scope size
2) slope of main bdi control line => scaling to the writeout bandwidth
so that
- in memory tight systems, (1) becomes strong enough to squeeze dirty
pages inside the control scope
- in large memory systems where the "gravity" of (1) for pulling the
dirty pages to setpoint is too weak, (2) can back (1) up and drive
dirty pages to bdi_setpoint ~= setpoint reasonably fast.
Unfortunately in JBOD setups, the fluctuation range of bdi threshold
is related to memory size due to the interferences between disks. In
this case, the bdi slope will be weighted sum of write_bw and bdi_thresh.
Given equations
span = x_intercept - bdi_setpoint
k = df/dx = - 1 / span
and the extremum values
span = bdi_thresh
dx = bdi_thresh
we get
df = - dx / span = - 1.0
That means, when bdi_dirty deviates bdi_thresh up, pos_ratio and hence
task ratelimit will fluctuate by -100%.
peter: use 3rd order polynomial for the global control line
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-03-02 16:04:18 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-09-23 19:37:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-03-23 08:57:38 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
mm: add dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes sysctls
This change introduces two new sysctls to /proc/sys/vm:
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes.
dirty_background_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_background_ratio and
dirty_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_ratio.
With growing memory capacities of individual machines, it's no longer
sufficient to specify dirty thresholds as a percentage of the amount of
dirtyable memory over the entire system.
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes specify quantities of memory, in
bytes, that represent the dirty limits for the entire system. If either
of these values is set, its value represents the amount of dirty memory
that is needed to commence either background or direct writeback.
When a `bytes' or `ratio' file is written, its counterpart becomes a
function of the written value. For example, if dirty_bytes is written to
be 8096, 8K of memory is required to commence direct writeback.
dirty_ratio is then functionally equivalent to 8K / the amount of
dirtyable memory:
dirtyable_memory = free pages + mapped pages + file cache
dirty_background_bytes = dirty_background_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_background_ratio = dirty_background_bytes / dirtyable_memory
AND
dirty_bytes = dirty_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_ratio = dirty_bytes / dirtyable_memory
Only one of dirty_background_bytes and dirty_background_ratio may be
specified at a time, and only one of dirty_bytes and dirty_ratio may be
specified. When one sysctl is written, the other appears as 0 when read.
The `bytes' files operate on a page size granularity since dirty limits
are compared with ZVC values, which are in page units.
Prior to this change, the minimum dirty_ratio was 5 as implemented by
get_dirty_limits() although /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio would show any user
written value between 0 and 100. This restriction is maintained, but
dirty_bytes has a lower limit of only one page.
Also prior to this change, the dirty_background_ratio could not equal or
exceed dirty_ratio. This restriction is maintained in addition to
restricting dirty_background_bytes. If either background threshold equals
or exceeds that of the dirty threshold, it is implicitly set to half the
dirty threshold.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-01-06 14:39:31 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-02-04 22:29:20 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-03-23 08:57:38 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
mm: add dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes sysctls
This change introduces two new sysctls to /proc/sys/vm:
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes.
dirty_background_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_background_ratio and
dirty_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_ratio.
With growing memory capacities of individual machines, it's no longer
sufficient to specify dirty thresholds as a percentage of the amount of
dirtyable memory over the entire system.
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes specify quantities of memory, in
bytes, that represent the dirty limits for the entire system. If either
of these values is set, its value represents the amount of dirty memory
that is needed to commence either background or direct writeback.
When a `bytes' or `ratio' file is written, its counterpart becomes a
function of the written value. For example, if dirty_bytes is written to
be 8096, 8K of memory is required to commence direct writeback.
dirty_ratio is then functionally equivalent to 8K / the amount of
dirtyable memory:
dirtyable_memory = free pages + mapped pages + file cache
dirty_background_bytes = dirty_background_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_background_ratio = dirty_background_bytes / dirtyable_memory
AND
dirty_bytes = dirty_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_ratio = dirty_bytes / dirtyable_memory
Only one of dirty_background_bytes and dirty_background_ratio may be
specified at a time, and only one of dirty_bytes and dirty_ratio may be
specified. When one sysctl is written, the other appears as 0 when read.
The `bytes' files operate on a page size granularity since dirty limits
are compared with ZVC values, which are in page units.
Prior to this change, the minimum dirty_ratio was 5 as implemented by
get_dirty_limits() although /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio would show any user
written value between 0 and 100. This restriction is maintained, but
dirty_bytes has a lower limit of only one page.
Also prior to this change, the dirty_background_ratio could not equal or
exceed dirty_ratio. This restriction is maintained in addition to
restricting dirty_background_bytes. If either background threshold equals
or exceeds that of the dirty threshold, it is implicitly set to half the
dirty threshold.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-01-06 14:39:31 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-03-31 15:23:18 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-05-16 22:56:28 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-03-21 22:33:00 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-03-31 15:23:18 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-05-16 22:56:28 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-03-24 03:15:49 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-03-02 15:54:09 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-05-24 18:59:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-01-10 15:06:57 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-01-10 15:07:44 -08:00
|
|
|
|
mm: try to distribute dirty pages fairly across zones
The maximum number of dirty pages that exist in the system at any time is
determined by a number of pages considered dirtyable and a user-configured
percentage of those, or an absolute number in bytes.
This number of dirtyable pages is the sum of memory provided by all the
zones in the system minus their lowmem reserves and high watermarks, so
that the system can retain a healthy number of free pages without having
to reclaim dirty pages.
But there is a flaw in that we have a zoned page allocator which does not
care about the global state but rather the state of individual memory
zones. And right now there is nothing that prevents one zone from filling
up with dirty pages while other zones are spared, which frequently leads
to situations where kswapd, in order to restore the watermark of free
pages, does indeed have to write pages from that zone's LRU list. This
can interfere so badly with IO from the flusher threads that major
filesystems (btrfs, xfs, ext4) mostly ignore write requests from reclaim
already, taking away the VM's only possibility to keep such a zone
balanced, aside from hoping the flushers will soon clean pages from that
zone.
Enter per-zone dirty limits. They are to a zone's dirtyable memory what
the global limit is to the global amount of dirtyable memory, and try to
make sure that no single zone receives more than its fair share of the
globally allowed dirty pages in the first place. As the number of pages
considered dirtyable excludes the zones' lowmem reserves and high
watermarks, the maximum number of dirty pages in a zone is such that the
zone can always be balanced without requiring page cleaning.
As this is a placement decision in the page allocator and pages are
dirtied only after the allocation, this patch allows allocators to pass
__GFP_WRITE when they know in advance that the page will be written to and
become dirty soon. The page allocator will then attempt to allocate from
the first zone of the zonelist - which on NUMA is determined by the task's
NUMA memory policy - that has not exceeded its dirty limit.
At first glance, it would appear that the diversion to lower zones can
increase pressure on them, but this is not the case. With a full high
zone, allocations will be diverted to lower zones eventually, so it is
more of a shift in timing of the lower zone allocations. Workloads that
previously could fit their dirty pages completely in the higher zone may
be forced to allocate from lower zones, but the amount of pages that
"spill over" are limited themselves by the lower zones' dirty constraints,
and thus unlikely to become a problem.
For now, the problem of unfair dirty page distribution remains for NUMA
configurations where the zones allowed for allocation are in sum not big
enough to trigger the global dirty limits, wake up the flusher threads and
remedy the situation. Because of this, an allocation that could not
succeed on any of the considered zones is allowed to ignore the dirty
limits before going into direct reclaim or even failing the allocation,
until a future patch changes the global dirty throttling and flusher
thread activation so that they take individual zone states into account.
Test results
15M DMA + 3246M DMA32 + 504 Normal = 3765M memory
40% dirty ratio
16G USB thumb drive
10 runs of dd if=/dev/zero of=disk/zeroes bs=32k count=$((10 << 15))
seconds nr_vmscan_write
(stddev) min| median| max
xfs
vanilla: 549.747( 3.492) 0.000| 0.000| 0.000
patched: 550.996( 3.802) 0.000| 0.000| 0.000
fuse-ntfs
vanilla: 1183.094(53.178) 54349.000| 59341.000| 65163.000
patched: 558.049(17.914) 0.000| 0.000| 43.000
btrfs
vanilla: 573.679(14.015) 156657.000| 460178.000| 606926.000
patched: 563.365(11.368) 0.000| 0.000| 1362.000
ext4
vanilla: 561.197(15.782) 0.000|2725438.000|4143837.000
patched: 568.806(17.496) 0.000| 0.000| 0.000
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Tested-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2012-01-10 15:07:49 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-01-10 15:06:57 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-01-10 15:07:42 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-01-10 15:06:57 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-12-20 15:05:07 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-01-10 15:06:57 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-01-10 15:07:44 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-01-10 15:06:57 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-01-10 15:07:44 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-01-10 15:06:57 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-04-12 13:44:20 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-01-10 15:06:57 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-12-20 15:05:07 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-01-10 15:06:57 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-01-10 15:07:44 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mm: try to distribute dirty pages fairly across zones
The maximum number of dirty pages that exist in the system at any time is
determined by a number of pages considered dirtyable and a user-configured
percentage of those, or an absolute number in bytes.
This number of dirtyable pages is the sum of memory provided by all the
zones in the system minus their lowmem reserves and high watermarks, so
that the system can retain a healthy number of free pages without having
to reclaim dirty pages.
But there is a flaw in that we have a zoned page allocator which does not
care about the global state but rather the state of individual memory
zones. And right now there is nothing that prevents one zone from filling
up with dirty pages while other zones are spared, which frequently leads
to situations where kswapd, in order to restore the watermark of free
pages, does indeed have to write pages from that zone's LRU list. This
can interfere so badly with IO from the flusher threads that major
filesystems (btrfs, xfs, ext4) mostly ignore write requests from reclaim
already, taking away the VM's only possibility to keep such a zone
balanced, aside from hoping the flushers will soon clean pages from that
zone.
Enter per-zone dirty limits. They are to a zone's dirtyable memory what
the global limit is to the global amount of dirtyable memory, and try to
make sure that no single zone receives more than its fair share of the
globally allowed dirty pages in the first place. As the number of pages
considered dirtyable excludes the zones' lowmem reserves and high
watermarks, the maximum number of dirty pages in a zone is such that the
zone can always be balanced without requiring page cleaning.
As this is a placement decision in the page allocator and pages are
dirtied only after the allocation, this patch allows allocators to pass
__GFP_WRITE when they know in advance that the page will be written to and
become dirty soon. The page allocator will then attempt to allocate from
the first zone of the zonelist - which on NUMA is determined by the task's
NUMA memory policy - that has not exceeded its dirty limit.
At first glance, it would appear that the diversion to lower zones can
increase pressure on them, but this is not the case. With a full high
zone, allocations will be diverted to lower zones eventually, so it is
more of a shift in timing of the lower zone allocations. Workloads that
previously could fit their dirty pages completely in the higher zone may
be forced to allocate from lower zones, but the amount of pages that
"spill over" are limited themselves by the lower zones' dirty constraints,
and thus unlikely to become a problem.
For now, the problem of unfair dirty page distribution remains for NUMA
configurations where the zones allowed for allocation are in sum not big
enough to trigger the global dirty limits, wake up the flusher threads and
remedy the situation. Because of this, an allocation that could not
succeed on any of the considered zones is allowed to ignore the dirty
limits before going into direct reclaim or even failing the allocation,
until a future patch changes the global dirty throttling and flusher
thread activation so that they take individual zone states into account.
Test results
15M DMA + 3246M DMA32 + 504 Normal = 3765M memory
40% dirty ratio
16G USB thumb drive
10 runs of dd if=/dev/zero of=disk/zeroes bs=32k count=$((10 << 15))
seconds nr_vmscan_write
(stddev) min| median| max
xfs
vanilla: 549.747( 3.492) 0.000| 0.000| 0.000
patched: 550.996( 3.802) 0.000| 0.000| 0.000
fuse-ntfs
vanilla: 1183.094(53.178) 54349.000| 59341.000| 65163.000
patched: 558.049(17.914) 0.000| 0.000| 43.000
btrfs
vanilla: 573.679(14.015) 156657.000| 460178.000| 606926.000
patched: 563.365(11.368) 0.000| 0.000| 1362.000
ext4
vanilla: 561.197(15.782) 0.000|2725438.000|4143837.000
patched: 568.806(17.496) 0.000| 0.000| 0.000
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Tested-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2012-01-10 15:07:49 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-12-20 15:05:07 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mm: try to distribute dirty pages fairly across zones
The maximum number of dirty pages that exist in the system at any time is
determined by a number of pages considered dirtyable and a user-configured
percentage of those, or an absolute number in bytes.
This number of dirtyable pages is the sum of memory provided by all the
zones in the system minus their lowmem reserves and high watermarks, so
that the system can retain a healthy number of free pages without having
to reclaim dirty pages.
But there is a flaw in that we have a zoned page allocator which does not
care about the global state but rather the state of individual memory
zones. And right now there is nothing that prevents one zone from filling
up with dirty pages while other zones are spared, which frequently leads
to situations where kswapd, in order to restore the watermark of free
pages, does indeed have to write pages from that zone's LRU list. This
can interfere so badly with IO from the flusher threads that major
filesystems (btrfs, xfs, ext4) mostly ignore write requests from reclaim
already, taking away the VM's only possibility to keep such a zone
balanced, aside from hoping the flushers will soon clean pages from that
zone.
Enter per-zone dirty limits. They are to a zone's dirtyable memory what
the global limit is to the global amount of dirtyable memory, and try to
make sure that no single zone receives more than its fair share of the
globally allowed dirty pages in the first place. As the number of pages
considered dirtyable excludes the zones' lowmem reserves and high
watermarks, the maximum number of dirty pages in a zone is such that the
zone can always be balanced without requiring page cleaning.
As this is a placement decision in the page allocator and pages are
dirtied only after the allocation, this patch allows allocators to pass
__GFP_WRITE when they know in advance that the page will be written to and
become dirty soon. The page allocator will then attempt to allocate from
the first zone of the zonelist - which on NUMA is determined by the task's
NUMA memory policy - that has not exceeded its dirty limit.
At first glance, it would appear that the diversion to lower zones can
increase pressure on them, but this is not the case. With a full high
zone, allocations will be diverted to lower zones eventually, so it is
more of a shift in timing of the lower zone allocations. Workloads that
previously could fit their dirty pages completely in the higher zone may
be forced to allocate from lower zones, but the amount of pages that
"spill over" are limited themselves by the lower zones' dirty constraints,
and thus unlikely to become a problem.
For now, the problem of unfair dirty page distribution remains for NUMA
configurations where the zones allowed for allocation are in sum not big
enough to trigger the global dirty limits, wake up the flusher threads and
remedy the situation. Because of this, an allocation that could not
succeed on any of the considered zones is allowed to ignore the dirty
limits before going into direct reclaim or even failing the allocation,
until a future patch changes the global dirty throttling and flusher
thread activation so that they take individual zone states into account.
Test results
15M DMA + 3246M DMA32 + 504 Normal = 3765M memory
40% dirty ratio
16G USB thumb drive
10 runs of dd if=/dev/zero of=disk/zeroes bs=32k count=$((10 << 15))
seconds nr_vmscan_write
(stddev) min| median| max
xfs
vanilla: 549.747( 3.492) 0.000| 0.000| 0.000
patched: 550.996( 3.802) 0.000| 0.000| 0.000
fuse-ntfs
vanilla: 1183.094(53.178) 54349.000| 59341.000| 65163.000
patched: 558.049(17.914) 0.000| 0.000| 43.000
btrfs
vanilla: 573.679(14.015) 156657.000| 460178.000| 606926.000
patched: 563.365(11.368) 0.000| 0.000| 1362.000
ext4
vanilla: 561.197(15.782) 0.000|2725438.000|4143837.000
patched: 568.806(17.496) 0.000| 0.000| 0.000
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Tested-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2012-01-10 15:07:49 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mm: add dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes sysctls
This change introduces two new sysctls to /proc/sys/vm:
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes.
dirty_background_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_background_ratio and
dirty_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_ratio.
With growing memory capacities of individual machines, it's no longer
sufficient to specify dirty thresholds as a percentage of the amount of
dirtyable memory over the entire system.
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes specify quantities of memory, in
bytes, that represent the dirty limits for the entire system. If either
of these values is set, its value represents the amount of dirty memory
that is needed to commence either background or direct writeback.
When a `bytes' or `ratio' file is written, its counterpart becomes a
function of the written value. For example, if dirty_bytes is written to
be 8096, 8K of memory is required to commence direct writeback.
dirty_ratio is then functionally equivalent to 8K / the amount of
dirtyable memory:
dirtyable_memory = free pages + mapped pages + file cache
dirty_background_bytes = dirty_background_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_background_ratio = dirty_background_bytes / dirtyable_memory
AND
dirty_bytes = dirty_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_ratio = dirty_bytes / dirtyable_memory
Only one of dirty_background_bytes and dirty_background_ratio may be
specified at a time, and only one of dirty_bytes and dirty_ratio may be
specified. When one sysctl is written, the other appears as 0 when read.
The `bytes' files operate on a page size granularity since dirty limits
are compared with ZVC values, which are in page units.
Prior to this change, the minimum dirty_ratio was 5 as implemented by
get_dirty_limits() although /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio would show any user
written value between 0 and 100. This restriction is maintained, but
dirty_bytes has a lower limit of only one page.
Also prior to this change, the dirty_background_ratio could not equal or
exceed dirty_ratio. This restriction is maintained in addition to
restricting dirty_background_bytes. If either background threshold equals
or exceeds that of the dirty threshold, it is implicitly set to half the
dirty threshold.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-01-06 14:39:31 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2009-09-23 15:57:19 -07:00
|
|
|
|
mm: add dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes sysctls
This change introduces two new sysctls to /proc/sys/vm:
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes.
dirty_background_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_background_ratio and
dirty_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_ratio.
With growing memory capacities of individual machines, it's no longer
sufficient to specify dirty thresholds as a percentage of the amount of
dirtyable memory over the entire system.
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes specify quantities of memory, in
bytes, that represent the dirty limits for the entire system. If either
of these values is set, its value represents the amount of dirty memory
that is needed to commence either background or direct writeback.
When a `bytes' or `ratio' file is written, its counterpart becomes a
function of the written value. For example, if dirty_bytes is written to
be 8096, 8K of memory is required to commence direct writeback.
dirty_ratio is then functionally equivalent to 8K / the amount of
dirtyable memory:
dirtyable_memory = free pages + mapped pages + file cache
dirty_background_bytes = dirty_background_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_background_ratio = dirty_background_bytes / dirtyable_memory
AND
dirty_bytes = dirty_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_ratio = dirty_bytes / dirtyable_memory
Only one of dirty_background_bytes and dirty_background_ratio may be
specified at a time, and only one of dirty_bytes and dirty_ratio may be
specified. When one sysctl is written, the other appears as 0 when read.
The `bytes' files operate on a page size granularity since dirty limits
are compared with ZVC values, which are in page units.
Prior to this change, the minimum dirty_ratio was 5 as implemented by
get_dirty_limits() although /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio would show any user
written value between 0 and 100. This restriction is maintained, but
dirty_bytes has a lower limit of only one page.
Also prior to this change, the dirty_background_ratio could not equal or
exceed dirty_ratio. This restriction is maintained in addition to
restricting dirty_background_bytes. If either background threshold equals
or exceeds that of the dirty threshold, it is implicitly set to half the
dirty threshold.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-01-06 14:39:31 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-09-23 15:57:19 -07:00
|
|
|
|
mm: add dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes sysctls
This change introduces two new sysctls to /proc/sys/vm:
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes.
dirty_background_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_background_ratio and
dirty_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_ratio.
With growing memory capacities of individual machines, it's no longer
sufficient to specify dirty thresholds as a percentage of the amount of
dirtyable memory over the entire system.
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes specify quantities of memory, in
bytes, that represent the dirty limits for the entire system. If either
of these values is set, its value represents the amount of dirty memory
that is needed to commence either background or direct writeback.
When a `bytes' or `ratio' file is written, its counterpart becomes a
function of the written value. For example, if dirty_bytes is written to
be 8096, 8K of memory is required to commence direct writeback.
dirty_ratio is then functionally equivalent to 8K / the amount of
dirtyable memory:
dirtyable_memory = free pages + mapped pages + file cache
dirty_background_bytes = dirty_background_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_background_ratio = dirty_background_bytes / dirtyable_memory
AND
dirty_bytes = dirty_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_ratio = dirty_bytes / dirtyable_memory
Only one of dirty_background_bytes and dirty_background_ratio may be
specified at a time, and only one of dirty_bytes and dirty_ratio may be
specified. When one sysctl is written, the other appears as 0 when read.
The `bytes' files operate on a page size granularity since dirty limits
are compared with ZVC values, which are in page units.
Prior to this change, the minimum dirty_ratio was 5 as implemented by
get_dirty_limits() although /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio would show any user
written value between 0 and 100. This restriction is maintained, but
dirty_bytes has a lower limit of only one page.
Also prior to this change, the dirty_background_ratio could not equal or
exceed dirty_ratio. This restriction is maintained in addition to
restricting dirty_background_bytes. If either background threshold equals
or exceeds that of the dirty threshold, it is implicitly set to half the
dirty threshold.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-01-06 14:39:31 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-09-23 15:57:19 -07:00
|
|
|
|
mm: add dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes sysctls
This change introduces two new sysctls to /proc/sys/vm:
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes.
dirty_background_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_background_ratio and
dirty_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_ratio.
With growing memory capacities of individual machines, it's no longer
sufficient to specify dirty thresholds as a percentage of the amount of
dirtyable memory over the entire system.
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes specify quantities of memory, in
bytes, that represent the dirty limits for the entire system. If either
of these values is set, its value represents the amount of dirty memory
that is needed to commence either background or direct writeback.
When a `bytes' or `ratio' file is written, its counterpart becomes a
function of the written value. For example, if dirty_bytes is written to
be 8096, 8K of memory is required to commence direct writeback.
dirty_ratio is then functionally equivalent to 8K / the amount of
dirtyable memory:
dirtyable_memory = free pages + mapped pages + file cache
dirty_background_bytes = dirty_background_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_background_ratio = dirty_background_bytes / dirtyable_memory
AND
dirty_bytes = dirty_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_ratio = dirty_bytes / dirtyable_memory
Only one of dirty_background_bytes and dirty_background_ratio may be
specified at a time, and only one of dirty_bytes and dirty_ratio may be
specified. When one sysctl is written, the other appears as 0 when read.
The `bytes' files operate on a page size granularity since dirty limits
are compared with ZVC values, which are in page units.
Prior to this change, the minimum dirty_ratio was 5 as implemented by
get_dirty_limits() although /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio would show any user
written value between 0 and 100. This restriction is maintained, but
dirty_bytes has a lower limit of only one page.
Also prior to this change, the dirty_background_ratio could not equal or
exceed dirty_ratio. This restriction is maintained in addition to
restricting dirty_background_bytes. If either background threshold equals
or exceeds that of the dirty threshold, it is implicitly set to half the
dirty threshold.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-01-06 14:39:31 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-09-23 15:57:19 -07:00
|
|
|
|
mm: add dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes sysctls
This change introduces two new sysctls to /proc/sys/vm:
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes.
dirty_background_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_background_ratio and
dirty_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_ratio.
With growing memory capacities of individual machines, it's no longer
sufficient to specify dirty thresholds as a percentage of the amount of
dirtyable memory over the entire system.
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes specify quantities of memory, in
bytes, that represent the dirty limits for the entire system. If either
of these values is set, its value represents the amount of dirty memory
that is needed to commence either background or direct writeback.
When a `bytes' or `ratio' file is written, its counterpart becomes a
function of the written value. For example, if dirty_bytes is written to
be 8096, 8K of memory is required to commence direct writeback.
dirty_ratio is then functionally equivalent to 8K / the amount of
dirtyable memory:
dirtyable_memory = free pages + mapped pages + file cache
dirty_background_bytes = dirty_background_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_background_ratio = dirty_background_bytes / dirtyable_memory
AND
dirty_bytes = dirty_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_ratio = dirty_bytes / dirtyable_memory
Only one of dirty_background_bytes and dirty_background_ratio may be
specified at a time, and only one of dirty_bytes and dirty_ratio may be
specified. When one sysctl is written, the other appears as 0 when read.
The `bytes' files operate on a page size granularity since dirty limits
are compared with ZVC values, which are in page units.
Prior to this change, the minimum dirty_ratio was 5 as implemented by
get_dirty_limits() although /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio would show any user
written value between 0 and 100. This restriction is maintained, but
dirty_bytes has a lower limit of only one page.
Also prior to this change, the dirty_background_ratio could not equal or
exceed dirty_ratio. This restriction is maintained in addition to
restricting dirty_background_bytes. If either background threshold equals
or exceeds that of the dirty threshold, it is implicitly set to half the
dirty threshold.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-01-06 14:39:31 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-09-23 15:57:19 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mm: add dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes sysctls
This change introduces two new sysctls to /proc/sys/vm:
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes.
dirty_background_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_background_ratio and
dirty_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_ratio.
With growing memory capacities of individual machines, it's no longer
sufficient to specify dirty thresholds as a percentage of the amount of
dirtyable memory over the entire system.
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes specify quantities of memory, in
bytes, that represent the dirty limits for the entire system. If either
of these values is set, its value represents the amount of dirty memory
that is needed to commence either background or direct writeback.
When a `bytes' or `ratio' file is written, its counterpart becomes a
function of the written value. For example, if dirty_bytes is written to
be 8096, 8K of memory is required to commence direct writeback.
dirty_ratio is then functionally equivalent to 8K / the amount of
dirtyable memory:
dirtyable_memory = free pages + mapped pages + file cache
dirty_background_bytes = dirty_background_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_background_ratio = dirty_background_bytes / dirtyable_memory
AND
dirty_bytes = dirty_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_ratio = dirty_bytes / dirtyable_memory
Only one of dirty_background_bytes and dirty_background_ratio may be
specified at a time, and only one of dirty_bytes and dirty_ratio may be
specified. When one sysctl is written, the other appears as 0 when read.
The `bytes' files operate on a page size granularity since dirty limits
are compared with ZVC values, which are in page units.
Prior to this change, the minimum dirty_ratio was 5 as implemented by
get_dirty_limits() although /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio would show any user
written value between 0 and 100. This restriction is maintained, but
dirty_bytes has a lower limit of only one page.
Also prior to this change, the dirty_background_ratio could not equal or
exceed dirty_ratio. This restriction is maintained in addition to
restricting dirty_background_bytes. If either background threshold equals
or exceeds that of the dirty threshold, it is implicitly set to half the
dirty threshold.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-01-06 14:39:31 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-09-23 15:57:19 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-05-24 18:59:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
mm: add dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes sysctls
This change introduces two new sysctls to /proc/sys/vm:
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes.
dirty_background_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_background_ratio and
dirty_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_ratio.
With growing memory capacities of individual machines, it's no longer
sufficient to specify dirty thresholds as a percentage of the amount of
dirtyable memory over the entire system.
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes specify quantities of memory, in
bytes, that represent the dirty limits for the entire system. If either
of these values is set, its value represents the amount of dirty memory
that is needed to commence either background or direct writeback.
When a `bytes' or `ratio' file is written, its counterpart becomes a
function of the written value. For example, if dirty_bytes is written to
be 8096, 8K of memory is required to commence direct writeback.
dirty_ratio is then functionally equivalent to 8K / the amount of
dirtyable memory:
dirtyable_memory = free pages + mapped pages + file cache
dirty_background_bytes = dirty_background_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_background_ratio = dirty_background_bytes / dirtyable_memory
AND
dirty_bytes = dirty_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_ratio = dirty_bytes / dirtyable_memory
Only one of dirty_background_bytes and dirty_background_ratio may be
specified at a time, and only one of dirty_bytes and dirty_ratio may be
specified. When one sysctl is written, the other appears as 0 when read.
The `bytes' files operate on a page size granularity since dirty limits
are compared with ZVC values, which are in page units.
Prior to this change, the minimum dirty_ratio was 5 as implemented by
get_dirty_limits() although /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio would show any user
written value between 0 and 100. This restriction is maintained, but
dirty_bytes has a lower limit of only one page.
Also prior to this change, the dirty_background_ratio could not equal or
exceed dirty_ratio. This restriction is maintained in addition to
restricting dirty_background_bytes. If either background threshold equals
or exceeds that of the dirty threshold, it is implicitly set to half the
dirty threshold.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-01-06 14:39:31 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-09-23 15:57:19 -07:00
|
|
|
|
mm: add dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes sysctls
This change introduces two new sysctls to /proc/sys/vm:
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes.
dirty_background_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_background_ratio and
dirty_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_ratio.
With growing memory capacities of individual machines, it's no longer
sufficient to specify dirty thresholds as a percentage of the amount of
dirtyable memory over the entire system.
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes specify quantities of memory, in
bytes, that represent the dirty limits for the entire system. If either
of these values is set, its value represents the amount of dirty memory
that is needed to commence either background or direct writeback.
When a `bytes' or `ratio' file is written, its counterpart becomes a
function of the written value. For example, if dirty_bytes is written to
be 8096, 8K of memory is required to commence direct writeback.
dirty_ratio is then functionally equivalent to 8K / the amount of
dirtyable memory:
dirtyable_memory = free pages + mapped pages + file cache
dirty_background_bytes = dirty_background_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_background_ratio = dirty_background_bytes / dirtyable_memory
AND
dirty_bytes = dirty_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_ratio = dirty_bytes / dirtyable_memory
Only one of dirty_background_bytes and dirty_background_ratio may be
specified at a time, and only one of dirty_bytes and dirty_ratio may be
specified. When one sysctl is written, the other appears as 0 when read.
The `bytes' files operate on a page size granularity since dirty limits
are compared with ZVC values, which are in page units.
Prior to this change, the minimum dirty_ratio was 5 as implemented by
get_dirty_limits() although /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio would show any user
written value between 0 and 100. This restriction is maintained, but
dirty_bytes has a lower limit of only one page.
Also prior to this change, the dirty_background_ratio could not equal or
exceed dirty_ratio. This restriction is maintained in addition to
restricting dirty_background_bytes. If either background threshold equals
or exceeds that of the dirty threshold, it is implicitly set to half the
dirty threshold.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-01-06 14:39:31 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-02-11 13:04:23 -08:00
|
|
|
|
mm: add dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes sysctls
This change introduces two new sysctls to /proc/sys/vm:
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes.
dirty_background_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_background_ratio and
dirty_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_ratio.
With growing memory capacities of individual machines, it's no longer
sufficient to specify dirty thresholds as a percentage of the amount of
dirtyable memory over the entire system.
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes specify quantities of memory, in
bytes, that represent the dirty limits for the entire system. If either
of these values is set, its value represents the amount of dirty memory
that is needed to commence either background or direct writeback.
When a `bytes' or `ratio' file is written, its counterpart becomes a
function of the written value. For example, if dirty_bytes is written to
be 8096, 8K of memory is required to commence direct writeback.
dirty_ratio is then functionally equivalent to 8K / the amount of
dirtyable memory:
dirtyable_memory = free pages + mapped pages + file cache
dirty_background_bytes = dirty_background_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_background_ratio = dirty_background_bytes / dirtyable_memory
AND
dirty_bytes = dirty_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_ratio = dirty_bytes / dirtyable_memory
Only one of dirty_background_bytes and dirty_background_ratio may be
specified at a time, and only one of dirty_bytes and dirty_ratio may be
specified. When one sysctl is written, the other appears as 0 when read.
The `bytes' files operate on a page size granularity since dirty limits
are compared with ZVC values, which are in page units.
Prior to this change, the minimum dirty_ratio was 5 as implemented by
get_dirty_limits() although /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio would show any user
written value between 0 and 100. This restriction is maintained, but
dirty_bytes has a lower limit of only one page.
Also prior to this change, the dirty_background_ratio could not equal or
exceed dirty_ratio. This restriction is maintained in addition to
restricting dirty_background_bytes. If either background threshold equals
or exceeds that of the dirty threshold, it is implicitly set to half the
dirty threshold.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-01-06 14:39:31 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-09-23 15:57:19 -07:00
|
|
|
|
mm: add dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes sysctls
This change introduces two new sysctls to /proc/sys/vm:
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes.
dirty_background_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_background_ratio and
dirty_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_ratio.
With growing memory capacities of individual machines, it's no longer
sufficient to specify dirty thresholds as a percentage of the amount of
dirtyable memory over the entire system.
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes specify quantities of memory, in
bytes, that represent the dirty limits for the entire system. If either
of these values is set, its value represents the amount of dirty memory
that is needed to commence either background or direct writeback.
When a `bytes' or `ratio' file is written, its counterpart becomes a
function of the written value. For example, if dirty_bytes is written to
be 8096, 8K of memory is required to commence direct writeback.
dirty_ratio is then functionally equivalent to 8K / the amount of
dirtyable memory:
dirtyable_memory = free pages + mapped pages + file cache
dirty_background_bytes = dirty_background_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_background_ratio = dirty_background_bytes / dirtyable_memory
AND
dirty_bytes = dirty_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_ratio = dirty_bytes / dirtyable_memory
Only one of dirty_background_bytes and dirty_background_ratio may be
specified at a time, and only one of dirty_bytes and dirty_ratio may be
specified. When one sysctl is written, the other appears as 0 when read.
The `bytes' files operate on a page size granularity since dirty limits
are compared with ZVC values, which are in page units.
Prior to this change, the minimum dirty_ratio was 5 as implemented by
get_dirty_limits() although /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio would show any user
written value between 0 and 100. This restriction is maintained, but
dirty_bytes has a lower limit of only one page.
Also prior to this change, the dirty_background_ratio could not equal or
exceed dirty_ratio. This restriction is maintained in addition to
restricting dirty_background_bytes. If either background threshold equals
or exceeds that of the dirty threshold, it is implicitly set to half the
dirty threshold.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-01-06 14:39:31 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2012-05-24 18:59:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
mm: add dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes sysctls
This change introduces two new sysctls to /proc/sys/vm:
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes.
dirty_background_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_background_ratio and
dirty_bytes is the counterpart to dirty_ratio.
With growing memory capacities of individual machines, it's no longer
sufficient to specify dirty thresholds as a percentage of the amount of
dirtyable memory over the entire system.
dirty_background_bytes and dirty_bytes specify quantities of memory, in
bytes, that represent the dirty limits for the entire system. If either
of these values is set, its value represents the amount of dirty memory
that is needed to commence either background or direct writeback.
When a `bytes' or `ratio' file is written, its counterpart becomes a
function of the written value. For example, if dirty_bytes is written to
be 8096, 8K of memory is required to commence direct writeback.
dirty_ratio is then functionally equivalent to 8K / the amount of
dirtyable memory:
dirtyable_memory = free pages + mapped pages + file cache
dirty_background_bytes = dirty_background_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_background_ratio = dirty_background_bytes / dirtyable_memory
AND
dirty_bytes = dirty_ratio * dirtyable_memory
-or-
dirty_ratio = dirty_bytes / dirtyable_memory
Only one of dirty_background_bytes and dirty_background_ratio may be
specified at a time, and only one of dirty_bytes and dirty_ratio may be
specified. When one sysctl is written, the other appears as 0 when read.
The `bytes' files operate on a page size granularity since dirty limits
are compared with ZVC values, which are in page units.
Prior to this change, the minimum dirty_ratio was 5 as implemented by
get_dirty_limits() although /proc/sys/vm/dirty_ratio would show any user
written value between 0 and 100. This restriction is maintained, but
dirty_bytes has a lower limit of only one page.
Also prior to this change, the dirty_background_ratio could not equal or
exceed dirty_ratio. This restriction is maintained in addition to
restricting dirty_background_bytes. If either background threshold equals
or exceeds that of the dirty threshold, it is implicitly set to half the
dirty threshold.
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Lameter <cl@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
Cc: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-01-06 14:39:31 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-05-24 18:59:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-12-08 22:44:24 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2012-05-24 18:59:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-30 00:54:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-05-24 18:59:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-05-24 18:59:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-30 00:54:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-10-31 17:07:05 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-30 00:54:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-09-14 13:12:40 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-30 00:54:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-30 00:54:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-30 00:54:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-09-14 13:12:40 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-30 00:54:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-09-14 13:12:40 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-30 00:54:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-05-24 18:59:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-30 00:54:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-09-14 13:12:40 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-30 00:54:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-30 00:54:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-04-30 00:54:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty position control
bdi_position_ratio() provides a scale factor to bdi->dirty_ratelimit, so
that the resulted task rate limit can drive the dirty pages back to the
global/bdi setpoints.
Old scheme is,
|
free run area | throttle area
----------------------------------------+---------------------------->
thresh^ dirty pages
New scheme is,
^ task rate limit
|
| *
| *
| *
|[free run] * [smooth throttled]
| *
| *
| *
..bdi->dirty_ratelimit..........*
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
+-------------------------------.-----------------------*------------>
setpoint^ limit^ dirty pages
The slope of the bdi control line should be
1) large enough to pull the dirty pages to setpoint reasonably fast
2) small enough to avoid big fluctuations in the resulted pos_ratio and
hence task ratelimit
Since the fluctuation range of the bdi dirty pages is typically observed
to be within 1-second worth of data, the bdi control line's slope is
selected to be a linear function of bdi write bandwidth, so that it can
adapt to slow/fast storage devices well.
Assume the bdi control line
pos_ratio = 1.0 + k * (dirty - bdi_setpoint)
where k is the negative slope.
If targeting for 12.5% fluctuation range in pos_ratio when dirty pages
are fluctuating in range
[bdi_setpoint - write_bw/2, bdi_setpoint + write_bw/2],
we get slope
k = - 1 / (8 * write_bw)
Let pos_ratio(x_intercept) = 0, we get the parameter used in code:
x_intercept = bdi_setpoint + 8 * write_bw
The global/bdi slopes are nicely complementing each other when the
system has only one major bdi (indicated by bdi_thresh ~= thresh):
1) slope of global control line => scaling to the control scope size
2) slope of main bdi control line => scaling to the writeout bandwidth
so that
- in memory tight systems, (1) becomes strong enough to squeeze dirty
pages inside the control scope
- in large memory systems where the "gravity" of (1) for pulling the
dirty pages to setpoint is too weak, (2) can back (1) up and drive
dirty pages to bdi_setpoint ~= setpoint reasonably fast.
Unfortunately in JBOD setups, the fluctuation range of bdi threshold
is related to memory size due to the interferences between disks. In
this case, the bdi slope will be weighted sum of write_bw and bdi_thresh.
Given equations
span = x_intercept - bdi_setpoint
k = df/dx = - 1 / span
and the extremum values
span = bdi_thresh
dx = bdi_thresh
we get
df = - dx / span = - 1.0
That means, when bdi_dirty deviates bdi_thresh up, pos_ratio and hence
task ratelimit will fluctuate by -100%.
peter: use 3rd order polynomial for the global control line
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-03-02 16:04:18 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-19 22:18:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-03-02 17:14:34 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-11 14:17:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-03-02 17:14:34 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-11 14:17:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-03-02 17:14:34 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-11-23 11:44:41 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-11 14:17:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-03-02 17:14:34 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-11 14:17:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-11 14:17:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-11 14:17:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-11 14:17:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-11 14:17:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mm/page-writeback.c: add strictlimit feature
The feature prevents mistrusted filesystems (ie: FUSE mounts created by
unprivileged users) to grow a large number of dirty pages before
throttling. For such filesystems balance_dirty_pages always check bdi
counters against bdi limits. I.e. even if global "nr_dirty" is under
"freerun", it's not allowed to skip bdi checks. The only use case for now
is fuse: it sets bdi max_ratio to 1% by default and system administrators
are supposed to expect that this limit won't be exceeded.
The feature is on if a BDI is marked by BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT flag. A
filesystem may set the flag when it initializes its BDI.
The problematic scenario comes from the fact that nobody pays attention to
the NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP counter (i.e. number of pages under fuse
writeback). The implementation of fuse writeback releases original page
(by calling end_page_writeback) almost immediately. A fuse request queued
for real processing bears a copy of original page. Hence, if userspace
fuse daemon doesn't finalize write requests in timely manner, an
aggressive mmap writer can pollute virtually all memory by those temporary
fuse page copies. They are carefully accounted in NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP, but
nobody cares.
To make further explanations shorter, let me use "NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP
problem" as a shortcut for "a possibility of uncontrolled grow of amount
of RAM consumed by temporary pages allocated by kernel fuse to process
writeback".
The problem was very easy to reproduce. There is a trivial example
filesystem implementation in fuse userspace distribution: fusexmp_fh.c. I
added "sleep(1);" to the write methods, then recompiled and mounted it.
Then created a huge file on the mount point and run a simple program which
mmap-ed the file to a memory region, then wrote a data to the region. An
hour later I observed almost all RAM consumed by fuse writeback. Since
then some unrelated changes in kernel fuse made it more difficult to
reproduce, but it is still possible now.
Putting this theoretical happens-in-the-lab thing aside, there is another
thing that really hurts real world (FUSE) users. This is write-through
page cache policy FUSE currently uses. I.e. handling write(2), kernel
fuse populates page cache and flushes user data to the server
synchronously. This is excessively suboptimal. Pavel Emelyanov's patches
("writeback cache policy") solve the problem, but they also make resolving
NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP problem absolutely necessary. Otherwise, simply copying
a huge file to a fuse mount would result in memory starvation. Miklos,
the maintainer of FUSE, believes strictlimit feature the way to go.
And eventually putting FUSE topics aside, there is one more use-case for
strictlimit feature. Using a slow USB stick (mass storage) in a machine
with huge amount of RAM installed is a well-known pain. Let's make simple
computations. Assuming 64GB of RAM installed, existing implementation of
balance_dirty_pages will start throttling only after 9.6GB of RAM becomes
dirty (freerun == 15% of total RAM). So, the command "cp 9GB_file
/media/my-usb-storage/" may return in a few seconds, but subsequent
"umount /media/my-usb-storage/" will take more than two hours if effective
throughput of the storage is, to say, 1MB/sec.
After inclusion of strictlimit feature, it will be trivial to add a knob
(e.g. /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/x:y/strictlimit) to enable it on demand.
Manually or via udev rule. May be I'm wrong, but it seems to be quite a
natural desire to limit the amount of dirty memory for some devices we are
not fully trust (in the sense of sustainable throughput).
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning in page-writeback.c]
Signed-off-by: Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@parallels.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-09-11 14:22:46 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty position control
bdi_position_ratio() provides a scale factor to bdi->dirty_ratelimit, so
that the resulted task rate limit can drive the dirty pages back to the
global/bdi setpoints.
Old scheme is,
|
free run area | throttle area
----------------------------------------+---------------------------->
thresh^ dirty pages
New scheme is,
^ task rate limit
|
| *
| *
| *
|[free run] * [smooth throttled]
| *
| *
| *
..bdi->dirty_ratelimit..........*
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
+-------------------------------.-----------------------*------------>
setpoint^ limit^ dirty pages
The slope of the bdi control line should be
1) large enough to pull the dirty pages to setpoint reasonably fast
2) small enough to avoid big fluctuations in the resulted pos_ratio and
hence task ratelimit
Since the fluctuation range of the bdi dirty pages is typically observed
to be within 1-second worth of data, the bdi control line's slope is
selected to be a linear function of bdi write bandwidth, so that it can
adapt to slow/fast storage devices well.
Assume the bdi control line
pos_ratio = 1.0 + k * (dirty - bdi_setpoint)
where k is the negative slope.
If targeting for 12.5% fluctuation range in pos_ratio when dirty pages
are fluctuating in range
[bdi_setpoint - write_bw/2, bdi_setpoint + write_bw/2],
we get slope
k = - 1 / (8 * write_bw)
Let pos_ratio(x_intercept) = 0, we get the parameter used in code:
x_intercept = bdi_setpoint + 8 * write_bw
The global/bdi slopes are nicely complementing each other when the
system has only one major bdi (indicated by bdi_thresh ~= thresh):
1) slope of global control line => scaling to the control scope size
2) slope of main bdi control line => scaling to the writeout bandwidth
so that
- in memory tight systems, (1) becomes strong enough to squeeze dirty
pages inside the control scope
- in large memory systems where the "gravity" of (1) for pulling the
dirty pages to setpoint is too weak, (2) can back (1) up and drive
dirty pages to bdi_setpoint ~= setpoint reasonably fast.
Unfortunately in JBOD setups, the fluctuation range of bdi threshold
is related to memory size due to the interferences between disks. In
this case, the bdi slope will be weighted sum of write_bw and bdi_thresh.
Given equations
span = x_intercept - bdi_setpoint
k = df/dx = - 1 / span
and the extremum values
span = bdi_thresh
dx = bdi_thresh
we get
df = - dx / span = - 1.0
That means, when bdi_dirty deviates bdi_thresh up, pos_ratio and hence
task ratelimit will fluctuate by -100%.
peter: use 3rd order polynomial for the global control line
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-03-02 16:04:18 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mm/page-writeback.c: add strictlimit feature
The feature prevents mistrusted filesystems (ie: FUSE mounts created by
unprivileged users) to grow a large number of dirty pages before
throttling. For such filesystems balance_dirty_pages always check bdi
counters against bdi limits. I.e. even if global "nr_dirty" is under
"freerun", it's not allowed to skip bdi checks. The only use case for now
is fuse: it sets bdi max_ratio to 1% by default and system administrators
are supposed to expect that this limit won't be exceeded.
The feature is on if a BDI is marked by BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT flag. A
filesystem may set the flag when it initializes its BDI.
The problematic scenario comes from the fact that nobody pays attention to
the NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP counter (i.e. number of pages under fuse
writeback). The implementation of fuse writeback releases original page
(by calling end_page_writeback) almost immediately. A fuse request queued
for real processing bears a copy of original page. Hence, if userspace
fuse daemon doesn't finalize write requests in timely manner, an
aggressive mmap writer can pollute virtually all memory by those temporary
fuse page copies. They are carefully accounted in NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP, but
nobody cares.
To make further explanations shorter, let me use "NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP
problem" as a shortcut for "a possibility of uncontrolled grow of amount
of RAM consumed by temporary pages allocated by kernel fuse to process
writeback".
The problem was very easy to reproduce. There is a trivial example
filesystem implementation in fuse userspace distribution: fusexmp_fh.c. I
added "sleep(1);" to the write methods, then recompiled and mounted it.
Then created a huge file on the mount point and run a simple program which
mmap-ed the file to a memory region, then wrote a data to the region. An
hour later I observed almost all RAM consumed by fuse writeback. Since
then some unrelated changes in kernel fuse made it more difficult to
reproduce, but it is still possible now.
Putting this theoretical happens-in-the-lab thing aside, there is another
thing that really hurts real world (FUSE) users. This is write-through
page cache policy FUSE currently uses. I.e. handling write(2), kernel
fuse populates page cache and flushes user data to the server
synchronously. This is excessively suboptimal. Pavel Emelyanov's patches
("writeback cache policy") solve the problem, but they also make resolving
NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP problem absolutely necessary. Otherwise, simply copying
a huge file to a fuse mount would result in memory starvation. Miklos,
the maintainer of FUSE, believes strictlimit feature the way to go.
And eventually putting FUSE topics aside, there is one more use-case for
strictlimit feature. Using a slow USB stick (mass storage) in a machine
with huge amount of RAM installed is a well-known pain. Let's make simple
computations. Assuming 64GB of RAM installed, existing implementation of
balance_dirty_pages will start throttling only after 9.6GB of RAM becomes
dirty (freerun == 15% of total RAM). So, the command "cp 9GB_file
/media/my-usb-storage/" may return in a few seconds, but subsequent
"umount /media/my-usb-storage/" will take more than two hours if effective
throughput of the storage is, to say, 1MB/sec.
After inclusion of strictlimit feature, it will be trivial to add a knob
(e.g. /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/x:y/strictlimit) to enable it on demand.
Manually or via udev rule. May be I'm wrong, but it seems to be quite a
natural desire to limit the amount of dirty memory for some devices we are
not fully trust (in the sense of sustainable throughput).
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning in page-writeback.c]
Signed-off-by: Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@parallels.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-09-11 14:22:46 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty position control
bdi_position_ratio() provides a scale factor to bdi->dirty_ratelimit, so
that the resulted task rate limit can drive the dirty pages back to the
global/bdi setpoints.
Old scheme is,
|
free run area | throttle area
----------------------------------------+---------------------------->
thresh^ dirty pages
New scheme is,
^ task rate limit
|
| *
| *
| *
|[free run] * [smooth throttled]
| *
| *
| *
..bdi->dirty_ratelimit..........*
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
+-------------------------------.-----------------------*------------>
setpoint^ limit^ dirty pages
The slope of the bdi control line should be
1) large enough to pull the dirty pages to setpoint reasonably fast
2) small enough to avoid big fluctuations in the resulted pos_ratio and
hence task ratelimit
Since the fluctuation range of the bdi dirty pages is typically observed
to be within 1-second worth of data, the bdi control line's slope is
selected to be a linear function of bdi write bandwidth, so that it can
adapt to slow/fast storage devices well.
Assume the bdi control line
pos_ratio = 1.0 + k * (dirty - bdi_setpoint)
where k is the negative slope.
If targeting for 12.5% fluctuation range in pos_ratio when dirty pages
are fluctuating in range
[bdi_setpoint - write_bw/2, bdi_setpoint + write_bw/2],
we get slope
k = - 1 / (8 * write_bw)
Let pos_ratio(x_intercept) = 0, we get the parameter used in code:
x_intercept = bdi_setpoint + 8 * write_bw
The global/bdi slopes are nicely complementing each other when the
system has only one major bdi (indicated by bdi_thresh ~= thresh):
1) slope of global control line => scaling to the control scope size
2) slope of main bdi control line => scaling to the writeout bandwidth
so that
- in memory tight systems, (1) becomes strong enough to squeeze dirty
pages inside the control scope
- in large memory systems where the "gravity" of (1) for pulling the
dirty pages to setpoint is too weak, (2) can back (1) up and drive
dirty pages to bdi_setpoint ~= setpoint reasonably fast.
Unfortunately in JBOD setups, the fluctuation range of bdi threshold
is related to memory size due to the interferences between disks. In
this case, the bdi slope will be weighted sum of write_bw and bdi_thresh.
Given equations
span = x_intercept - bdi_setpoint
k = df/dx = - 1 / span
and the extremum values
span = bdi_thresh
dx = bdi_thresh
we get
df = - dx / span = - 1.0
That means, when bdi_dirty deviates bdi_thresh up, pos_ratio and hence
task ratelimit will fluctuate by -100%.
peter: use 3rd order polynomial for the global control line
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-03-02 16:04:18 -06:00
|
|
|
|
mm/page-writeback.c: add strictlimit feature
The feature prevents mistrusted filesystems (ie: FUSE mounts created by
unprivileged users) to grow a large number of dirty pages before
throttling. For such filesystems balance_dirty_pages always check bdi
counters against bdi limits. I.e. even if global "nr_dirty" is under
"freerun", it's not allowed to skip bdi checks. The only use case for now
is fuse: it sets bdi max_ratio to 1% by default and system administrators
are supposed to expect that this limit won't be exceeded.
The feature is on if a BDI is marked by BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT flag. A
filesystem may set the flag when it initializes its BDI.
The problematic scenario comes from the fact that nobody pays attention to
the NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP counter (i.e. number of pages under fuse
writeback). The implementation of fuse writeback releases original page
(by calling end_page_writeback) almost immediately. A fuse request queued
for real processing bears a copy of original page. Hence, if userspace
fuse daemon doesn't finalize write requests in timely manner, an
aggressive mmap writer can pollute virtually all memory by those temporary
fuse page copies. They are carefully accounted in NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP, but
nobody cares.
To make further explanations shorter, let me use "NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP
problem" as a shortcut for "a possibility of uncontrolled grow of amount
of RAM consumed by temporary pages allocated by kernel fuse to process
writeback".
The problem was very easy to reproduce. There is a trivial example
filesystem implementation in fuse userspace distribution: fusexmp_fh.c. I
added "sleep(1);" to the write methods, then recompiled and mounted it.
Then created a huge file on the mount point and run a simple program which
mmap-ed the file to a memory region, then wrote a data to the region. An
hour later I observed almost all RAM consumed by fuse writeback. Since
then some unrelated changes in kernel fuse made it more difficult to
reproduce, but it is still possible now.
Putting this theoretical happens-in-the-lab thing aside, there is another
thing that really hurts real world (FUSE) users. This is write-through
page cache policy FUSE currently uses. I.e. handling write(2), kernel
fuse populates page cache and flushes user data to the server
synchronously. This is excessively suboptimal. Pavel Emelyanov's patches
("writeback cache policy") solve the problem, but they also make resolving
NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP problem absolutely necessary. Otherwise, simply copying
a huge file to a fuse mount would result in memory starvation. Miklos,
the maintainer of FUSE, believes strictlimit feature the way to go.
And eventually putting FUSE topics aside, there is one more use-case for
strictlimit feature. Using a slow USB stick (mass storage) in a machine
with huge amount of RAM installed is a well-known pain. Let's make simple
computations. Assuming 64GB of RAM installed, existing implementation of
balance_dirty_pages will start throttling only after 9.6GB of RAM becomes
dirty (freerun == 15% of total RAM). So, the command "cp 9GB_file
/media/my-usb-storage/" may return in a few seconds, but subsequent
"umount /media/my-usb-storage/" will take more than two hours if effective
throughput of the storage is, to say, 1MB/sec.
After inclusion of strictlimit feature, it will be trivial to add a knob
(e.g. /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/x:y/strictlimit) to enable it on demand.
Manually or via udev rule. May be I'm wrong, but it seems to be quite a
natural desire to limit the amount of dirty memory for some devices we are
not fully trust (in the sense of sustainable throughput).
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning in page-writeback.c]
Signed-off-by: Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@parallels.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-09-11 14:22:46 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty position control
bdi_position_ratio() provides a scale factor to bdi->dirty_ratelimit, so
that the resulted task rate limit can drive the dirty pages back to the
global/bdi setpoints.
Old scheme is,
|
free run area | throttle area
----------------------------------------+---------------------------->
thresh^ dirty pages
New scheme is,
^ task rate limit
|
| *
| *
| *
|[free run] * [smooth throttled]
| *
| *
| *
..bdi->dirty_ratelimit..........*
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
+-------------------------------.-----------------------*------------>
setpoint^ limit^ dirty pages
The slope of the bdi control line should be
1) large enough to pull the dirty pages to setpoint reasonably fast
2) small enough to avoid big fluctuations in the resulted pos_ratio and
hence task ratelimit
Since the fluctuation range of the bdi dirty pages is typically observed
to be within 1-second worth of data, the bdi control line's slope is
selected to be a linear function of bdi write bandwidth, so that it can
adapt to slow/fast storage devices well.
Assume the bdi control line
pos_ratio = 1.0 + k * (dirty - bdi_setpoint)
where k is the negative slope.
If targeting for 12.5% fluctuation range in pos_ratio when dirty pages
are fluctuating in range
[bdi_setpoint - write_bw/2, bdi_setpoint + write_bw/2],
we get slope
k = - 1 / (8 * write_bw)
Let pos_ratio(x_intercept) = 0, we get the parameter used in code:
x_intercept = bdi_setpoint + 8 * write_bw
The global/bdi slopes are nicely complementing each other when the
system has only one major bdi (indicated by bdi_thresh ~= thresh):
1) slope of global control line => scaling to the control scope size
2) slope of main bdi control line => scaling to the writeout bandwidth
so that
- in memory tight systems, (1) becomes strong enough to squeeze dirty
pages inside the control scope
- in large memory systems where the "gravity" of (1) for pulling the
dirty pages to setpoint is too weak, (2) can back (1) up and drive
dirty pages to bdi_setpoint ~= setpoint reasonably fast.
Unfortunately in JBOD setups, the fluctuation range of bdi threshold
is related to memory size due to the interferences between disks. In
this case, the bdi slope will be weighted sum of write_bw and bdi_thresh.
Given equations
span = x_intercept - bdi_setpoint
k = df/dx = - 1 / span
and the extremum values
span = bdi_thresh
dx = bdi_thresh
we get
df = - dx / span = - 1.0
That means, when bdi_dirty deviates bdi_thresh up, pos_ratio and hence
task ratelimit will fluctuate by -100%.
peter: use 3rd order polynomial for the global control line
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-03-02 16:04:18 -06:00
|
|
|
|
mm/page-writeback.c: add strictlimit feature
The feature prevents mistrusted filesystems (ie: FUSE mounts created by
unprivileged users) to grow a large number of dirty pages before
throttling. For such filesystems balance_dirty_pages always check bdi
counters against bdi limits. I.e. even if global "nr_dirty" is under
"freerun", it's not allowed to skip bdi checks. The only use case for now
is fuse: it sets bdi max_ratio to 1% by default and system administrators
are supposed to expect that this limit won't be exceeded.
The feature is on if a BDI is marked by BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT flag. A
filesystem may set the flag when it initializes its BDI.
The problematic scenario comes from the fact that nobody pays attention to
the NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP counter (i.e. number of pages under fuse
writeback). The implementation of fuse writeback releases original page
(by calling end_page_writeback) almost immediately. A fuse request queued
for real processing bears a copy of original page. Hence, if userspace
fuse daemon doesn't finalize write requests in timely manner, an
aggressive mmap writer can pollute virtually all memory by those temporary
fuse page copies. They are carefully accounted in NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP, but
nobody cares.
To make further explanations shorter, let me use "NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP
problem" as a shortcut for "a possibility of uncontrolled grow of amount
of RAM consumed by temporary pages allocated by kernel fuse to process
writeback".
The problem was very easy to reproduce. There is a trivial example
filesystem implementation in fuse userspace distribution: fusexmp_fh.c. I
added "sleep(1);" to the write methods, then recompiled and mounted it.
Then created a huge file on the mount point and run a simple program which
mmap-ed the file to a memory region, then wrote a data to the region. An
hour later I observed almost all RAM consumed by fuse writeback. Since
then some unrelated changes in kernel fuse made it more difficult to
reproduce, but it is still possible now.
Putting this theoretical happens-in-the-lab thing aside, there is another
thing that really hurts real world (FUSE) users. This is write-through
page cache policy FUSE currently uses. I.e. handling write(2), kernel
fuse populates page cache and flushes user data to the server
synchronously. This is excessively suboptimal. Pavel Emelyanov's patches
("writeback cache policy") solve the problem, but they also make resolving
NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP problem absolutely necessary. Otherwise, simply copying
a huge file to a fuse mount would result in memory starvation. Miklos,
the maintainer of FUSE, believes strictlimit feature the way to go.
And eventually putting FUSE topics aside, there is one more use-case for
strictlimit feature. Using a slow USB stick (mass storage) in a machine
with huge amount of RAM installed is a well-known pain. Let's make simple
computations. Assuming 64GB of RAM installed, existing implementation of
balance_dirty_pages will start throttling only after 9.6GB of RAM becomes
dirty (freerun == 15% of total RAM). So, the command "cp 9GB_file
/media/my-usb-storage/" may return in a few seconds, but subsequent
"umount /media/my-usb-storage/" will take more than two hours if effective
throughput of the storage is, to say, 1MB/sec.
After inclusion of strictlimit feature, it will be trivial to add a knob
(e.g. /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/x:y/strictlimit) to enable it on demand.
Manually or via udev rule. May be I'm wrong, but it seems to be quite a
natural desire to limit the amount of dirty memory for some devices we are
not fully trust (in the sense of sustainable throughput).
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning in page-writeback.c]
Signed-off-by: Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@parallels.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-09-11 14:22:46 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty position control
bdi_position_ratio() provides a scale factor to bdi->dirty_ratelimit, so
that the resulted task rate limit can drive the dirty pages back to the
global/bdi setpoints.
Old scheme is,
|
free run area | throttle area
----------------------------------------+---------------------------->
thresh^ dirty pages
New scheme is,
^ task rate limit
|
| *
| *
| *
|[free run] * [smooth throttled]
| *
| *
| *
..bdi->dirty_ratelimit..........*
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
+-------------------------------.-----------------------*------------>
setpoint^ limit^ dirty pages
The slope of the bdi control line should be
1) large enough to pull the dirty pages to setpoint reasonably fast
2) small enough to avoid big fluctuations in the resulted pos_ratio and
hence task ratelimit
Since the fluctuation range of the bdi dirty pages is typically observed
to be within 1-second worth of data, the bdi control line's slope is
selected to be a linear function of bdi write bandwidth, so that it can
adapt to slow/fast storage devices well.
Assume the bdi control line
pos_ratio = 1.0 + k * (dirty - bdi_setpoint)
where k is the negative slope.
If targeting for 12.5% fluctuation range in pos_ratio when dirty pages
are fluctuating in range
[bdi_setpoint - write_bw/2, bdi_setpoint + write_bw/2],
we get slope
k = - 1 / (8 * write_bw)
Let pos_ratio(x_intercept) = 0, we get the parameter used in code:
x_intercept = bdi_setpoint + 8 * write_bw
The global/bdi slopes are nicely complementing each other when the
system has only one major bdi (indicated by bdi_thresh ~= thresh):
1) slope of global control line => scaling to the control scope size
2) slope of main bdi control line => scaling to the writeout bandwidth
so that
- in memory tight systems, (1) becomes strong enough to squeeze dirty
pages inside the control scope
- in large memory systems where the "gravity" of (1) for pulling the
dirty pages to setpoint is too weak, (2) can back (1) up and drive
dirty pages to bdi_setpoint ~= setpoint reasonably fast.
Unfortunately in JBOD setups, the fluctuation range of bdi threshold
is related to memory size due to the interferences between disks. In
this case, the bdi slope will be weighted sum of write_bw and bdi_thresh.
Given equations
span = x_intercept - bdi_setpoint
k = df/dx = - 1 / span
and the extremum values
span = bdi_thresh
dx = bdi_thresh
we get
df = - dx / span = - 1.0
That means, when bdi_dirty deviates bdi_thresh up, pos_ratio and hence
task ratelimit will fluctuate by -100%.
peter: use 3rd order polynomial for the global control line
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-03-02 16:04:18 -06:00
|
|
|
|
mm/page-writeback.c: add strictlimit feature
The feature prevents mistrusted filesystems (ie: FUSE mounts created by
unprivileged users) to grow a large number of dirty pages before
throttling. For such filesystems balance_dirty_pages always check bdi
counters against bdi limits. I.e. even if global "nr_dirty" is under
"freerun", it's not allowed to skip bdi checks. The only use case for now
is fuse: it sets bdi max_ratio to 1% by default and system administrators
are supposed to expect that this limit won't be exceeded.
The feature is on if a BDI is marked by BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT flag. A
filesystem may set the flag when it initializes its BDI.
The problematic scenario comes from the fact that nobody pays attention to
the NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP counter (i.e. number of pages under fuse
writeback). The implementation of fuse writeback releases original page
(by calling end_page_writeback) almost immediately. A fuse request queued
for real processing bears a copy of original page. Hence, if userspace
fuse daemon doesn't finalize write requests in timely manner, an
aggressive mmap writer can pollute virtually all memory by those temporary
fuse page copies. They are carefully accounted in NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP, but
nobody cares.
To make further explanations shorter, let me use "NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP
problem" as a shortcut for "a possibility of uncontrolled grow of amount
of RAM consumed by temporary pages allocated by kernel fuse to process
writeback".
The problem was very easy to reproduce. There is a trivial example
filesystem implementation in fuse userspace distribution: fusexmp_fh.c. I
added "sleep(1);" to the write methods, then recompiled and mounted it.
Then created a huge file on the mount point and run a simple program which
mmap-ed the file to a memory region, then wrote a data to the region. An
hour later I observed almost all RAM consumed by fuse writeback. Since
then some unrelated changes in kernel fuse made it more difficult to
reproduce, but it is still possible now.
Putting this theoretical happens-in-the-lab thing aside, there is another
thing that really hurts real world (FUSE) users. This is write-through
page cache policy FUSE currently uses. I.e. handling write(2), kernel
fuse populates page cache and flushes user data to the server
synchronously. This is excessively suboptimal. Pavel Emelyanov's patches
("writeback cache policy") solve the problem, but they also make resolving
NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP problem absolutely necessary. Otherwise, simply copying
a huge file to a fuse mount would result in memory starvation. Miklos,
the maintainer of FUSE, believes strictlimit feature the way to go.
And eventually putting FUSE topics aside, there is one more use-case for
strictlimit feature. Using a slow USB stick (mass storage) in a machine
with huge amount of RAM installed is a well-known pain. Let's make simple
computations. Assuming 64GB of RAM installed, existing implementation of
balance_dirty_pages will start throttling only after 9.6GB of RAM becomes
dirty (freerun == 15% of total RAM). So, the command "cp 9GB_file
/media/my-usb-storage/" may return in a few seconds, but subsequent
"umount /media/my-usb-storage/" will take more than two hours if effective
throughput of the storage is, to say, 1MB/sec.
After inclusion of strictlimit feature, it will be trivial to add a knob
(e.g. /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/x:y/strictlimit) to enable it on demand.
Manually or via udev rule. May be I'm wrong, but it seems to be quite a
natural desire to limit the amount of dirty memory for some devices we are
not fully trust (in the sense of sustainable throughput).
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning in page-writeback.c]
Signed-off-by: Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@parallels.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-09-11 14:22:46 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty position control
bdi_position_ratio() provides a scale factor to bdi->dirty_ratelimit, so
that the resulted task rate limit can drive the dirty pages back to the
global/bdi setpoints.
Old scheme is,
|
free run area | throttle area
----------------------------------------+---------------------------->
thresh^ dirty pages
New scheme is,
^ task rate limit
|
| *
| *
| *
|[free run] * [smooth throttled]
| *
| *
| *
..bdi->dirty_ratelimit..........*
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
+-------------------------------.-----------------------*------------>
setpoint^ limit^ dirty pages
The slope of the bdi control line should be
1) large enough to pull the dirty pages to setpoint reasonably fast
2) small enough to avoid big fluctuations in the resulted pos_ratio and
hence task ratelimit
Since the fluctuation range of the bdi dirty pages is typically observed
to be within 1-second worth of data, the bdi control line's slope is
selected to be a linear function of bdi write bandwidth, so that it can
adapt to slow/fast storage devices well.
Assume the bdi control line
pos_ratio = 1.0 + k * (dirty - bdi_setpoint)
where k is the negative slope.
If targeting for 12.5% fluctuation range in pos_ratio when dirty pages
are fluctuating in range
[bdi_setpoint - write_bw/2, bdi_setpoint + write_bw/2],
we get slope
k = - 1 / (8 * write_bw)
Let pos_ratio(x_intercept) = 0, we get the parameter used in code:
x_intercept = bdi_setpoint + 8 * write_bw
The global/bdi slopes are nicely complementing each other when the
system has only one major bdi (indicated by bdi_thresh ~= thresh):
1) slope of global control line => scaling to the control scope size
2) slope of main bdi control line => scaling to the writeout bandwidth
so that
- in memory tight systems, (1) becomes strong enough to squeeze dirty
pages inside the control scope
- in large memory systems where the "gravity" of (1) for pulling the
dirty pages to setpoint is too weak, (2) can back (1) up and drive
dirty pages to bdi_setpoint ~= setpoint reasonably fast.
Unfortunately in JBOD setups, the fluctuation range of bdi threshold
is related to memory size due to the interferences between disks. In
this case, the bdi slope will be weighted sum of write_bw and bdi_thresh.
Given equations
span = x_intercept - bdi_setpoint
k = df/dx = - 1 / span
and the extremum values
span = bdi_thresh
dx = bdi_thresh
we get
df = - dx / span = - 1.0
That means, when bdi_dirty deviates bdi_thresh up, pos_ratio and hence
task ratelimit will fluctuate by -100%.
peter: use 3rd order polynomial for the global control line
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-03-02 16:04:18 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-11-23 11:44:41 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-08-04 22:16:46 -06:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty position control
bdi_position_ratio() provides a scale factor to bdi->dirty_ratelimit, so
that the resulted task rate limit can drive the dirty pages back to the
global/bdi setpoints.
Old scheme is,
|
free run area | throttle area
----------------------------------------+---------------------------->
thresh^ dirty pages
New scheme is,
^ task rate limit
|
| *
| *
| *
|[free run] * [smooth throttled]
| *
| *
| *
..bdi->dirty_ratelimit..........*
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
+-------------------------------.-----------------------*------------>
setpoint^ limit^ dirty pages
The slope of the bdi control line should be
1) large enough to pull the dirty pages to setpoint reasonably fast
2) small enough to avoid big fluctuations in the resulted pos_ratio and
hence task ratelimit
Since the fluctuation range of the bdi dirty pages is typically observed
to be within 1-second worth of data, the bdi control line's slope is
selected to be a linear function of bdi write bandwidth, so that it can
adapt to slow/fast storage devices well.
Assume the bdi control line
pos_ratio = 1.0 + k * (dirty - bdi_setpoint)
where k is the negative slope.
If targeting for 12.5% fluctuation range in pos_ratio when dirty pages
are fluctuating in range
[bdi_setpoint - write_bw/2, bdi_setpoint + write_bw/2],
we get slope
k = - 1 / (8 * write_bw)
Let pos_ratio(x_intercept) = 0, we get the parameter used in code:
x_intercept = bdi_setpoint + 8 * write_bw
The global/bdi slopes are nicely complementing each other when the
system has only one major bdi (indicated by bdi_thresh ~= thresh):
1) slope of global control line => scaling to the control scope size
2) slope of main bdi control line => scaling to the writeout bandwidth
so that
- in memory tight systems, (1) becomes strong enough to squeeze dirty
pages inside the control scope
- in large memory systems where the "gravity" of (1) for pulling the
dirty pages to setpoint is too weak, (2) can back (1) up and drive
dirty pages to bdi_setpoint ~= setpoint reasonably fast.
Unfortunately in JBOD setups, the fluctuation range of bdi threshold
is related to memory size due to the interferences between disks. In
this case, the bdi slope will be weighted sum of write_bw and bdi_thresh.
Given equations
span = x_intercept - bdi_setpoint
k = df/dx = - 1 / span
and the extremum values
span = bdi_thresh
dx = bdi_thresh
we get
df = - dx / span = - 1.0
That means, when bdi_dirty deviates bdi_thresh up, pos_ratio and hence
task ratelimit will fluctuate by -100%.
peter: use 3rd order polynomial for the global control line
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-03-02 16:04:18 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-10-11 17:06:33 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty position control
bdi_position_ratio() provides a scale factor to bdi->dirty_ratelimit, so
that the resulted task rate limit can drive the dirty pages back to the
global/bdi setpoints.
Old scheme is,
|
free run area | throttle area
----------------------------------------+---------------------------->
thresh^ dirty pages
New scheme is,
^ task rate limit
|
| *
| *
| *
|[free run] * [smooth throttled]
| *
| *
| *
..bdi->dirty_ratelimit..........*
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
+-------------------------------.-----------------------*------------>
setpoint^ limit^ dirty pages
The slope of the bdi control line should be
1) large enough to pull the dirty pages to setpoint reasonably fast
2) small enough to avoid big fluctuations in the resulted pos_ratio and
hence task ratelimit
Since the fluctuation range of the bdi dirty pages is typically observed
to be within 1-second worth of data, the bdi control line's slope is
selected to be a linear function of bdi write bandwidth, so that it can
adapt to slow/fast storage devices well.
Assume the bdi control line
pos_ratio = 1.0 + k * (dirty - bdi_setpoint)
where k is the negative slope.
If targeting for 12.5% fluctuation range in pos_ratio when dirty pages
are fluctuating in range
[bdi_setpoint - write_bw/2, bdi_setpoint + write_bw/2],
we get slope
k = - 1 / (8 * write_bw)
Let pos_ratio(x_intercept) = 0, we get the parameter used in code:
x_intercept = bdi_setpoint + 8 * write_bw
The global/bdi slopes are nicely complementing each other when the
system has only one major bdi (indicated by bdi_thresh ~= thresh):
1) slope of global control line => scaling to the control scope size
2) slope of main bdi control line => scaling to the writeout bandwidth
so that
- in memory tight systems, (1) becomes strong enough to squeeze dirty
pages inside the control scope
- in large memory systems where the "gravity" of (1) for pulling the
dirty pages to setpoint is too weak, (2) can back (1) up and drive
dirty pages to bdi_setpoint ~= setpoint reasonably fast.
Unfortunately in JBOD setups, the fluctuation range of bdi threshold
is related to memory size due to the interferences between disks. In
this case, the bdi slope will be weighted sum of write_bw and bdi_thresh.
Given equations
span = x_intercept - bdi_setpoint
k = df/dx = - 1 / span
and the extremum values
span = bdi_thresh
dx = bdi_thresh
we get
df = - dx / span = - 1.0
That means, when bdi_dirty deviates bdi_thresh up, pos_ratio and hence
task ratelimit will fluctuate by -100%.
peter: use 3rd order polynomial for the global control line
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-03-02 16:04:18 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-08-04 22:16:46 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-10-11 17:06:33 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-08-04 22:16:46 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty position control
bdi_position_ratio() provides a scale factor to bdi->dirty_ratelimit, so
that the resulted task rate limit can drive the dirty pages back to the
global/bdi setpoints.
Old scheme is,
|
free run area | throttle area
----------------------------------------+---------------------------->
thresh^ dirty pages
New scheme is,
^ task rate limit
|
| *
| *
| *
|[free run] * [smooth throttled]
| *
| *
| *
..bdi->dirty_ratelimit..........*
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
| . *
+-------------------------------.-----------------------*------------>
setpoint^ limit^ dirty pages
The slope of the bdi control line should be
1) large enough to pull the dirty pages to setpoint reasonably fast
2) small enough to avoid big fluctuations in the resulted pos_ratio and
hence task ratelimit
Since the fluctuation range of the bdi dirty pages is typically observed
to be within 1-second worth of data, the bdi control line's slope is
selected to be a linear function of bdi write bandwidth, so that it can
adapt to slow/fast storage devices well.
Assume the bdi control line
pos_ratio = 1.0 + k * (dirty - bdi_setpoint)
where k is the negative slope.
If targeting for 12.5% fluctuation range in pos_ratio when dirty pages
are fluctuating in range
[bdi_setpoint - write_bw/2, bdi_setpoint + write_bw/2],
we get slope
k = - 1 / (8 * write_bw)
Let pos_ratio(x_intercept) = 0, we get the parameter used in code:
x_intercept = bdi_setpoint + 8 * write_bw
The global/bdi slopes are nicely complementing each other when the
system has only one major bdi (indicated by bdi_thresh ~= thresh):
1) slope of global control line => scaling to the control scope size
2) slope of main bdi control line => scaling to the writeout bandwidth
so that
- in memory tight systems, (1) becomes strong enough to squeeze dirty
pages inside the control scope
- in large memory systems where the "gravity" of (1) for pulling the
dirty pages to setpoint is too weak, (2) can back (1) up and drive
dirty pages to bdi_setpoint ~= setpoint reasonably fast.
Unfortunately in JBOD setups, the fluctuation range of bdi threshold
is related to memory size due to the interferences between disks. In
this case, the bdi slope will be weighted sum of write_bw and bdi_thresh.
Given equations
span = x_intercept - bdi_setpoint
k = df/dx = - 1 / span
and the extremum values
span = bdi_thresh
dx = bdi_thresh
we get
df = - dx / span = - 1.0
That means, when bdi_dirty deviates bdi_thresh up, pos_ratio and hence
task ratelimit will fluctuate by -100%.
peter: use 3rd order polynomial for the global control line
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-03-02 16:04:18 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-29 11:22:30 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-03-02 15:54:09 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty rate control
It's all about bdi->dirty_ratelimit, which aims to be (write_bw / N)
when there are N dd tasks.
On write() syscall, use bdi->dirty_ratelimit
============================================
balance_dirty_pages(pages_dirtied)
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
pause = pages_dirtied / task_ratelimit;
sleep(pause);
}
On every 200ms, update bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit()
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit * write_bw / dirty_rate;
bdi->dirty_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
}
Estimation of balanced bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
balanced task_ratelimit
-----------------------
balance_dirty_pages() needs to throttle tasks dirtying pages such that
the total amount of dirty pages stays below the specified dirty limit in
order to avoid memory deadlocks. Furthermore we desire fairness in that
tasks get throttled proportionally to the amount of pages they dirty.
IOW we want to throttle tasks such that we match the dirty rate to the
writeout bandwidth, this yields a stable amount of dirty pages:
dirty_rate == write_bw (1)
The fairness requirement gives us:
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
== write_bw / N (2)
where N is the number of dd tasks. We don't know N beforehand, but
still can estimate balanced_dirty_ratelimit within 200ms.
Start by throttling each dd task at rate
task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 (3)
(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_0 (4)
Or
task_ratelimit_0 == dirty_rate / N (5)
Now we conclude that the balanced task ratelimit can be estimated by
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 * ---------- (6)
dirty_rate
Because with (4) and (5) we can get the desired equality (1):
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit == (dirty_rate / N) * ----------
dirty_rate
== write_bw / N
Then using the balanced task ratelimit we can compute task pause times like:
task_pause = task->nr_dirtied / task_ratelimit
task_ratelimit with position control
------------------------------------
However, while the above gives us means of matching the dirty rate to
the writeout bandwidth, it at best provides us with a stable dirty page
count (assuming a static system). In order to control the dirty page
count such that it is high enough to provide performance, but does not
exceed the specified limit we need another control.
The dirty position control works by extending (2) to
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (7)
where pos_ratio is a negative feedback function that subjects to
1) f(setpoint) = 1.0
2) df/dx < 0
That is, if the dirty pages are ABOVE the setpoint, we throttle each
task a bit more HEAVY than balanced_dirty_ratelimit, so that the dirty
pages are created less fast than they are cleaned, thus DROP to the
setpoints (and the reverse).
Based on (7) and the assumption that both dirty_ratelimit and pos_ratio
remains CONSTANT for the past 200ms, we get
task_ratelimit_0 = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (8)
Putting (8) into (6), we get the formula used in
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit():
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit *= pos_ratio * ---------- (9)
dirty_rate
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-12 10:51:31 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: stabilize bdi->dirty_ratelimit
There are some imperfections in balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
1) large fluctuations
The dirty_rate used for computing balanced_dirty_ratelimit is merely
averaged in the past 200ms (very small comparing to the 3s estimation
period for write_bw), which makes rather dispersed distribution of
balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
It's pretty hard to average out the singular points by increasing the
estimation period. Considering that the averaging technique will
introduce very undesirable time lags, I give it up totally. (btw, the 3s
write_bw averaging time lag is much more acceptable because its impact
is one-way and therefore won't lead to oscillations.)
The more practical way is filtering -- most singular
balanced_dirty_ratelimit points can be filtered out by remembering some
prev_balanced_rate and prev_prev_balanced_rate. However the more
reliable way is to guard balanced_dirty_ratelimit with task_ratelimit.
2) due to truncates and fs redirties, the (write_bw <=> dirty_rate)
match could become unbalanced, which may lead to large systematical
errors in balanced_dirty_ratelimit. The truncates, due to its possibly
bumpy nature, can hardly be compensated smoothly. So let's face it. When
some over-estimated balanced_dirty_ratelimit brings dirty_ratelimit
high, dirty pages will go higher than the setpoint. task_ratelimit will
in turn become lower than dirty_ratelimit. So if we consider both
balanced_dirty_ratelimit and task_ratelimit and update dirty_ratelimit
only when they are on the same side of dirty_ratelimit, the systematical
errors in balanced_dirty_ratelimit won't be able to bring
dirty_ratelimit far away.
The balanced_dirty_ratelimit estimation may also be inaccurate near
@limit or @freerun, however is less an issue.
3) since we ultimately want to
- keep the fluctuations of task ratelimit as small as possible
- keep the dirty pages around the setpoint as long time as possible
the update policy used for (2) also serves the above goals nicely:
if for some reason the dirty pages are high (task_ratelimit < dirty_ratelimit),
and dirty_ratelimit is low (dirty_ratelimit < balanced_dirty_ratelimit),
there is no point to bring up dirty_ratelimit in a hurry only to hurt
both the above two goals.
So, we make use of task_ratelimit to limit the update of dirty_ratelimit
in two ways:
1) avoid changing dirty rate when it's against the position control target
(the adjusted rate will slow down the progress of dirty pages going
back to setpoint).
2) limit the step size. task_ratelimit is changing values step by step,
leaving a consistent trace comparing to the randomly jumping
balanced_dirty_ratelimit. task_ratelimit also has the nice smaller
errors in stable state and typically larger errors when there are big
errors in rate. So it's a pretty good limiting factor for the step
size of dirty_ratelimit.
Note that bdi->dirty_ratelimit is always tracking balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
task_ratelimit is merely used as a limiting factor.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-08-26 15:53:24 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty rate control
It's all about bdi->dirty_ratelimit, which aims to be (write_bw / N)
when there are N dd tasks.
On write() syscall, use bdi->dirty_ratelimit
============================================
balance_dirty_pages(pages_dirtied)
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
pause = pages_dirtied / task_ratelimit;
sleep(pause);
}
On every 200ms, update bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit()
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit * write_bw / dirty_rate;
bdi->dirty_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
}
Estimation of balanced bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
balanced task_ratelimit
-----------------------
balance_dirty_pages() needs to throttle tasks dirtying pages such that
the total amount of dirty pages stays below the specified dirty limit in
order to avoid memory deadlocks. Furthermore we desire fairness in that
tasks get throttled proportionally to the amount of pages they dirty.
IOW we want to throttle tasks such that we match the dirty rate to the
writeout bandwidth, this yields a stable amount of dirty pages:
dirty_rate == write_bw (1)
The fairness requirement gives us:
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
== write_bw / N (2)
where N is the number of dd tasks. We don't know N beforehand, but
still can estimate balanced_dirty_ratelimit within 200ms.
Start by throttling each dd task at rate
task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 (3)
(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_0 (4)
Or
task_ratelimit_0 == dirty_rate / N (5)
Now we conclude that the balanced task ratelimit can be estimated by
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 * ---------- (6)
dirty_rate
Because with (4) and (5) we can get the desired equality (1):
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit == (dirty_rate / N) * ----------
dirty_rate
== write_bw / N
Then using the balanced task ratelimit we can compute task pause times like:
task_pause = task->nr_dirtied / task_ratelimit
task_ratelimit with position control
------------------------------------
However, while the above gives us means of matching the dirty rate to
the writeout bandwidth, it at best provides us with a stable dirty page
count (assuming a static system). In order to control the dirty page
count such that it is high enough to provide performance, but does not
exceed the specified limit we need another control.
The dirty position control works by extending (2) to
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (7)
where pos_ratio is a negative feedback function that subjects to
1) f(setpoint) = 1.0
2) df/dx < 0
That is, if the dirty pages are ABOVE the setpoint, we throttle each
task a bit more HEAVY than balanced_dirty_ratelimit, so that the dirty
pages are created less fast than they are cleaned, thus DROP to the
setpoints (and the reverse).
Based on (7) and the assumption that both dirty_ratelimit and pos_ratio
remains CONSTANT for the past 200ms, we get
task_ratelimit_0 = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (8)
Putting (8) into (6), we get the formula used in
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit():
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit *= pos_ratio * ---------- (9)
dirty_rate
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-12 10:51:31 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: stabilize bdi->dirty_ratelimit
There are some imperfections in balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
1) large fluctuations
The dirty_rate used for computing balanced_dirty_ratelimit is merely
averaged in the past 200ms (very small comparing to the 3s estimation
period for write_bw), which makes rather dispersed distribution of
balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
It's pretty hard to average out the singular points by increasing the
estimation period. Considering that the averaging technique will
introduce very undesirable time lags, I give it up totally. (btw, the 3s
write_bw averaging time lag is much more acceptable because its impact
is one-way and therefore won't lead to oscillations.)
The more practical way is filtering -- most singular
balanced_dirty_ratelimit points can be filtered out by remembering some
prev_balanced_rate and prev_prev_balanced_rate. However the more
reliable way is to guard balanced_dirty_ratelimit with task_ratelimit.
2) due to truncates and fs redirties, the (write_bw <=> dirty_rate)
match could become unbalanced, which may lead to large systematical
errors in balanced_dirty_ratelimit. The truncates, due to its possibly
bumpy nature, can hardly be compensated smoothly. So let's face it. When
some over-estimated balanced_dirty_ratelimit brings dirty_ratelimit
high, dirty pages will go higher than the setpoint. task_ratelimit will
in turn become lower than dirty_ratelimit. So if we consider both
balanced_dirty_ratelimit and task_ratelimit and update dirty_ratelimit
only when they are on the same side of dirty_ratelimit, the systematical
errors in balanced_dirty_ratelimit won't be able to bring
dirty_ratelimit far away.
The balanced_dirty_ratelimit estimation may also be inaccurate near
@limit or @freerun, however is less an issue.
3) since we ultimately want to
- keep the fluctuations of task ratelimit as small as possible
- keep the dirty pages around the setpoint as long time as possible
the update policy used for (2) also serves the above goals nicely:
if for some reason the dirty pages are high (task_ratelimit < dirty_ratelimit),
and dirty_ratelimit is low (dirty_ratelimit < balanced_dirty_ratelimit),
there is no point to bring up dirty_ratelimit in a hurry only to hurt
both the above two goals.
So, we make use of task_ratelimit to limit the update of dirty_ratelimit
in two ways:
1) avoid changing dirty rate when it's against the position control target
(the adjusted rate will slow down the progress of dirty pages going
back to setpoint).
2) limit the step size. task_ratelimit is changing values step by step,
leaving a consistent trace comparing to the randomly jumping
balanced_dirty_ratelimit. task_ratelimit also has the nice smaller
errors in stable state and typically larger errors when there are big
errors in rate. So it's a pretty good limiting factor for the step
size of dirty_ratelimit.
Note that bdi->dirty_ratelimit is always tracking balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
task_ratelimit is merely used as a limiting factor.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-08-26 15:53:24 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty rate control
It's all about bdi->dirty_ratelimit, which aims to be (write_bw / N)
when there are N dd tasks.
On write() syscall, use bdi->dirty_ratelimit
============================================
balance_dirty_pages(pages_dirtied)
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
pause = pages_dirtied / task_ratelimit;
sleep(pause);
}
On every 200ms, update bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit()
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit * write_bw / dirty_rate;
bdi->dirty_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
}
Estimation of balanced bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
balanced task_ratelimit
-----------------------
balance_dirty_pages() needs to throttle tasks dirtying pages such that
the total amount of dirty pages stays below the specified dirty limit in
order to avoid memory deadlocks. Furthermore we desire fairness in that
tasks get throttled proportionally to the amount of pages they dirty.
IOW we want to throttle tasks such that we match the dirty rate to the
writeout bandwidth, this yields a stable amount of dirty pages:
dirty_rate == write_bw (1)
The fairness requirement gives us:
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
== write_bw / N (2)
where N is the number of dd tasks. We don't know N beforehand, but
still can estimate balanced_dirty_ratelimit within 200ms.
Start by throttling each dd task at rate
task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 (3)
(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_0 (4)
Or
task_ratelimit_0 == dirty_rate / N (5)
Now we conclude that the balanced task ratelimit can be estimated by
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 * ---------- (6)
dirty_rate
Because with (4) and (5) we can get the desired equality (1):
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit == (dirty_rate / N) * ----------
dirty_rate
== write_bw / N
Then using the balanced task ratelimit we can compute task pause times like:
task_pause = task->nr_dirtied / task_ratelimit
task_ratelimit with position control
------------------------------------
However, while the above gives us means of matching the dirty rate to
the writeout bandwidth, it at best provides us with a stable dirty page
count (assuming a static system). In order to control the dirty page
count such that it is high enough to provide performance, but does not
exceed the specified limit we need another control.
The dirty position control works by extending (2) to
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (7)
where pos_ratio is a negative feedback function that subjects to
1) f(setpoint) = 1.0
2) df/dx < 0
That is, if the dirty pages are ABOVE the setpoint, we throttle each
task a bit more HEAVY than balanced_dirty_ratelimit, so that the dirty
pages are created less fast than they are cleaned, thus DROP to the
setpoints (and the reverse).
Based on (7) and the assumption that both dirty_ratelimit and pos_ratio
remains CONSTANT for the past 200ms, we get
task_ratelimit_0 = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (8)
Putting (8) into (6), we get the formula used in
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit():
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit *= pos_ratio * ---------- (9)
dirty_rate
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-12 10:51:31 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-08-03 14:30:36 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty rate control
It's all about bdi->dirty_ratelimit, which aims to be (write_bw / N)
when there are N dd tasks.
On write() syscall, use bdi->dirty_ratelimit
============================================
balance_dirty_pages(pages_dirtied)
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
pause = pages_dirtied / task_ratelimit;
sleep(pause);
}
On every 200ms, update bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit()
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit * write_bw / dirty_rate;
bdi->dirty_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
}
Estimation of balanced bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
balanced task_ratelimit
-----------------------
balance_dirty_pages() needs to throttle tasks dirtying pages such that
the total amount of dirty pages stays below the specified dirty limit in
order to avoid memory deadlocks. Furthermore we desire fairness in that
tasks get throttled proportionally to the amount of pages they dirty.
IOW we want to throttle tasks such that we match the dirty rate to the
writeout bandwidth, this yields a stable amount of dirty pages:
dirty_rate == write_bw (1)
The fairness requirement gives us:
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
== write_bw / N (2)
where N is the number of dd tasks. We don't know N beforehand, but
still can estimate balanced_dirty_ratelimit within 200ms.
Start by throttling each dd task at rate
task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 (3)
(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_0 (4)
Or
task_ratelimit_0 == dirty_rate / N (5)
Now we conclude that the balanced task ratelimit can be estimated by
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 * ---------- (6)
dirty_rate
Because with (4) and (5) we can get the desired equality (1):
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit == (dirty_rate / N) * ----------
dirty_rate
== write_bw / N
Then using the balanced task ratelimit we can compute task pause times like:
task_pause = task->nr_dirtied / task_ratelimit
task_ratelimit with position control
------------------------------------
However, while the above gives us means of matching the dirty rate to
the writeout bandwidth, it at best provides us with a stable dirty page
count (assuming a static system). In order to control the dirty page
count such that it is high enough to provide performance, but does not
exceed the specified limit we need another control.
The dirty position control works by extending (2) to
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (7)
where pos_ratio is a negative feedback function that subjects to
1) f(setpoint) = 1.0
2) df/dx < 0
That is, if the dirty pages are ABOVE the setpoint, we throttle each
task a bit more HEAVY than balanced_dirty_ratelimit, so that the dirty
pages are created less fast than they are cleaned, thus DROP to the
setpoints (and the reverse).
Based on (7) and the assumption that both dirty_ratelimit and pos_ratio
remains CONSTANT for the past 200ms, we get
task_ratelimit_0 = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (8)
Putting (8) into (6), we get the formula used in
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit():
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit *= pos_ratio * ---------- (9)
dirty_rate
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-12 10:51:31 -06:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: stabilize bdi->dirty_ratelimit
There are some imperfections in balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
1) large fluctuations
The dirty_rate used for computing balanced_dirty_ratelimit is merely
averaged in the past 200ms (very small comparing to the 3s estimation
period for write_bw), which makes rather dispersed distribution of
balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
It's pretty hard to average out the singular points by increasing the
estimation period. Considering that the averaging technique will
introduce very undesirable time lags, I give it up totally. (btw, the 3s
write_bw averaging time lag is much more acceptable because its impact
is one-way and therefore won't lead to oscillations.)
The more practical way is filtering -- most singular
balanced_dirty_ratelimit points can be filtered out by remembering some
prev_balanced_rate and prev_prev_balanced_rate. However the more
reliable way is to guard balanced_dirty_ratelimit with task_ratelimit.
2) due to truncates and fs redirties, the (write_bw <=> dirty_rate)
match could become unbalanced, which may lead to large systematical
errors in balanced_dirty_ratelimit. The truncates, due to its possibly
bumpy nature, can hardly be compensated smoothly. So let's face it. When
some over-estimated balanced_dirty_ratelimit brings dirty_ratelimit
high, dirty pages will go higher than the setpoint. task_ratelimit will
in turn become lower than dirty_ratelimit. So if we consider both
balanced_dirty_ratelimit and task_ratelimit and update dirty_ratelimit
only when they are on the same side of dirty_ratelimit, the systematical
errors in balanced_dirty_ratelimit won't be able to bring
dirty_ratelimit far away.
The balanced_dirty_ratelimit estimation may also be inaccurate near
@limit or @freerun, however is less an issue.
3) since we ultimately want to
- keep the fluctuations of task ratelimit as small as possible
- keep the dirty pages around the setpoint as long time as possible
the update policy used for (2) also serves the above goals nicely:
if for some reason the dirty pages are high (task_ratelimit < dirty_ratelimit),
and dirty_ratelimit is low (dirty_ratelimit < balanced_dirty_ratelimit),
there is no point to bring up dirty_ratelimit in a hurry only to hurt
both the above two goals.
So, we make use of task_ratelimit to limit the update of dirty_ratelimit
in two ways:
1) avoid changing dirty rate when it's against the position control target
(the adjusted rate will slow down the progress of dirty pages going
back to setpoint).
2) limit the step size. task_ratelimit is changing values step by step,
leaving a consistent trace comparing to the randomly jumping
balanced_dirty_ratelimit. task_ratelimit also has the nice smaller
errors in stable state and typically larger errors when there are big
errors in rate. So it's a pretty good limiting factor for the step
size of dirty_ratelimit.
Note that bdi->dirty_ratelimit is always tracking balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
task_ratelimit is merely used as a limiting factor.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-08-26 15:53:24 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-06-09 11:10:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: stabilize bdi->dirty_ratelimit
There are some imperfections in balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
1) large fluctuations
The dirty_rate used for computing balanced_dirty_ratelimit is merely
averaged in the past 200ms (very small comparing to the 3s estimation
period for write_bw), which makes rather dispersed distribution of
balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
It's pretty hard to average out the singular points by increasing the
estimation period. Considering that the averaging technique will
introduce very undesirable time lags, I give it up totally. (btw, the 3s
write_bw averaging time lag is much more acceptable because its impact
is one-way and therefore won't lead to oscillations.)
The more practical way is filtering -- most singular
balanced_dirty_ratelimit points can be filtered out by remembering some
prev_balanced_rate and prev_prev_balanced_rate. However the more
reliable way is to guard balanced_dirty_ratelimit with task_ratelimit.
2) due to truncates and fs redirties, the (write_bw <=> dirty_rate)
match could become unbalanced, which may lead to large systematical
errors in balanced_dirty_ratelimit. The truncates, due to its possibly
bumpy nature, can hardly be compensated smoothly. So let's face it. When
some over-estimated balanced_dirty_ratelimit brings dirty_ratelimit
high, dirty pages will go higher than the setpoint. task_ratelimit will
in turn become lower than dirty_ratelimit. So if we consider both
balanced_dirty_ratelimit and task_ratelimit and update dirty_ratelimit
only when they are on the same side of dirty_ratelimit, the systematical
errors in balanced_dirty_ratelimit won't be able to bring
dirty_ratelimit far away.
The balanced_dirty_ratelimit estimation may also be inaccurate near
@limit or @freerun, however is less an issue.
3) since we ultimately want to
- keep the fluctuations of task ratelimit as small as possible
- keep the dirty pages around the setpoint as long time as possible
the update policy used for (2) also serves the above goals nicely:
if for some reason the dirty pages are high (task_ratelimit < dirty_ratelimit),
and dirty_ratelimit is low (dirty_ratelimit < balanced_dirty_ratelimit),
there is no point to bring up dirty_ratelimit in a hurry only to hurt
both the above two goals.
So, we make use of task_ratelimit to limit the update of dirty_ratelimit
in two ways:
1) avoid changing dirty rate when it's against the position control target
(the adjusted rate will slow down the progress of dirty pages going
back to setpoint).
2) limit the step size. task_ratelimit is changing values step by step,
leaving a consistent trace comparing to the randomly jumping
balanced_dirty_ratelimit. task_ratelimit also has the nice smaller
errors in stable state and typically larger errors when there are big
errors in rate. So it's a pretty good limiting factor for the step
size of dirty_ratelimit.
Note that bdi->dirty_ratelimit is always tracking balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
task_ratelimit is merely used as a limiting factor.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-08-26 15:53:24 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-06-09 11:10:55 +08:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: stabilize bdi->dirty_ratelimit
There are some imperfections in balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
1) large fluctuations
The dirty_rate used for computing balanced_dirty_ratelimit is merely
averaged in the past 200ms (very small comparing to the 3s estimation
period for write_bw), which makes rather dispersed distribution of
balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
It's pretty hard to average out the singular points by increasing the
estimation period. Considering that the averaging technique will
introduce very undesirable time lags, I give it up totally. (btw, the 3s
write_bw averaging time lag is much more acceptable because its impact
is one-way and therefore won't lead to oscillations.)
The more practical way is filtering -- most singular
balanced_dirty_ratelimit points can be filtered out by remembering some
prev_balanced_rate and prev_prev_balanced_rate. However the more
reliable way is to guard balanced_dirty_ratelimit with task_ratelimit.
2) due to truncates and fs redirties, the (write_bw <=> dirty_rate)
match could become unbalanced, which may lead to large systematical
errors in balanced_dirty_ratelimit. The truncates, due to its possibly
bumpy nature, can hardly be compensated smoothly. So let's face it. When
some over-estimated balanced_dirty_ratelimit brings dirty_ratelimit
high, dirty pages will go higher than the setpoint. task_ratelimit will
in turn become lower than dirty_ratelimit. So if we consider both
balanced_dirty_ratelimit and task_ratelimit and update dirty_ratelimit
only when they are on the same side of dirty_ratelimit, the systematical
errors in balanced_dirty_ratelimit won't be able to bring
dirty_ratelimit far away.
The balanced_dirty_ratelimit estimation may also be inaccurate near
@limit or @freerun, however is less an issue.
3) since we ultimately want to
- keep the fluctuations of task ratelimit as small as possible
- keep the dirty pages around the setpoint as long time as possible
the update policy used for (2) also serves the above goals nicely:
if for some reason the dirty pages are high (task_ratelimit < dirty_ratelimit),
and dirty_ratelimit is low (dirty_ratelimit < balanced_dirty_ratelimit),
there is no point to bring up dirty_ratelimit in a hurry only to hurt
both the above two goals.
So, we make use of task_ratelimit to limit the update of dirty_ratelimit
in two ways:
1) avoid changing dirty rate when it's against the position control target
(the adjusted rate will slow down the progress of dirty pages going
back to setpoint).
2) limit the step size. task_ratelimit is changing values step by step,
leaving a consistent trace comparing to the randomly jumping
balanced_dirty_ratelimit. task_ratelimit also has the nice smaller
errors in stable state and typically larger errors when there are big
errors in rate. So it's a pretty good limiting factor for the step
size of dirty_ratelimit.
Note that bdi->dirty_ratelimit is always tracking balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
task_ratelimit is merely used as a limiting factor.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-08-26 15:53:24 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mm/page-writeback.c: add strictlimit feature
The feature prevents mistrusted filesystems (ie: FUSE mounts created by
unprivileged users) to grow a large number of dirty pages before
throttling. For such filesystems balance_dirty_pages always check bdi
counters against bdi limits. I.e. even if global "nr_dirty" is under
"freerun", it's not allowed to skip bdi checks. The only use case for now
is fuse: it sets bdi max_ratio to 1% by default and system administrators
are supposed to expect that this limit won't be exceeded.
The feature is on if a BDI is marked by BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT flag. A
filesystem may set the flag when it initializes its BDI.
The problematic scenario comes from the fact that nobody pays attention to
the NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP counter (i.e. number of pages under fuse
writeback). The implementation of fuse writeback releases original page
(by calling end_page_writeback) almost immediately. A fuse request queued
for real processing bears a copy of original page. Hence, if userspace
fuse daemon doesn't finalize write requests in timely manner, an
aggressive mmap writer can pollute virtually all memory by those temporary
fuse page copies. They are carefully accounted in NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP, but
nobody cares.
To make further explanations shorter, let me use "NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP
problem" as a shortcut for "a possibility of uncontrolled grow of amount
of RAM consumed by temporary pages allocated by kernel fuse to process
writeback".
The problem was very easy to reproduce. There is a trivial example
filesystem implementation in fuse userspace distribution: fusexmp_fh.c. I
added "sleep(1);" to the write methods, then recompiled and mounted it.
Then created a huge file on the mount point and run a simple program which
mmap-ed the file to a memory region, then wrote a data to the region. An
hour later I observed almost all RAM consumed by fuse writeback. Since
then some unrelated changes in kernel fuse made it more difficult to
reproduce, but it is still possible now.
Putting this theoretical happens-in-the-lab thing aside, there is another
thing that really hurts real world (FUSE) users. This is write-through
page cache policy FUSE currently uses. I.e. handling write(2), kernel
fuse populates page cache and flushes user data to the server
synchronously. This is excessively suboptimal. Pavel Emelyanov's patches
("writeback cache policy") solve the problem, but they also make resolving
NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP problem absolutely necessary. Otherwise, simply copying
a huge file to a fuse mount would result in memory starvation. Miklos,
the maintainer of FUSE, believes strictlimit feature the way to go.
And eventually putting FUSE topics aside, there is one more use-case for
strictlimit feature. Using a slow USB stick (mass storage) in a machine
with huge amount of RAM installed is a well-known pain. Let's make simple
computations. Assuming 64GB of RAM installed, existing implementation of
balance_dirty_pages will start throttling only after 9.6GB of RAM becomes
dirty (freerun == 15% of total RAM). So, the command "cp 9GB_file
/media/my-usb-storage/" may return in a few seconds, but subsequent
"umount /media/my-usb-storage/" will take more than two hours if effective
throughput of the storage is, to say, 1MB/sec.
After inclusion of strictlimit feature, it will be trivial to add a knob
(e.g. /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/x:y/strictlimit) to enable it on demand.
Manually or via udev rule. May be I'm wrong, but it seems to be quite a
natural desire to limit the amount of dirty memory for some devices we are
not fully trust (in the sense of sustainable throughput).
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning in page-writeback.c]
Signed-off-by: Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@parallels.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-09-11 14:22:46 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: stabilize bdi->dirty_ratelimit
There are some imperfections in balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
1) large fluctuations
The dirty_rate used for computing balanced_dirty_ratelimit is merely
averaged in the past 200ms (very small comparing to the 3s estimation
period for write_bw), which makes rather dispersed distribution of
balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
It's pretty hard to average out the singular points by increasing the
estimation period. Considering that the averaging technique will
introduce very undesirable time lags, I give it up totally. (btw, the 3s
write_bw averaging time lag is much more acceptable because its impact
is one-way and therefore won't lead to oscillations.)
The more practical way is filtering -- most singular
balanced_dirty_ratelimit points can be filtered out by remembering some
prev_balanced_rate and prev_prev_balanced_rate. However the more
reliable way is to guard balanced_dirty_ratelimit with task_ratelimit.
2) due to truncates and fs redirties, the (write_bw <=> dirty_rate)
match could become unbalanced, which may lead to large systematical
errors in balanced_dirty_ratelimit. The truncates, due to its possibly
bumpy nature, can hardly be compensated smoothly. So let's face it. When
some over-estimated balanced_dirty_ratelimit brings dirty_ratelimit
high, dirty pages will go higher than the setpoint. task_ratelimit will
in turn become lower than dirty_ratelimit. So if we consider both
balanced_dirty_ratelimit and task_ratelimit and update dirty_ratelimit
only when they are on the same side of dirty_ratelimit, the systematical
errors in balanced_dirty_ratelimit won't be able to bring
dirty_ratelimit far away.
The balanced_dirty_ratelimit estimation may also be inaccurate near
@limit or @freerun, however is less an issue.
3) since we ultimately want to
- keep the fluctuations of task ratelimit as small as possible
- keep the dirty pages around the setpoint as long time as possible
the update policy used for (2) also serves the above goals nicely:
if for some reason the dirty pages are high (task_ratelimit < dirty_ratelimit),
and dirty_ratelimit is low (dirty_ratelimit < balanced_dirty_ratelimit),
there is no point to bring up dirty_ratelimit in a hurry only to hurt
both the above two goals.
So, we make use of task_ratelimit to limit the update of dirty_ratelimit
in two ways:
1) avoid changing dirty rate when it's against the position control target
(the adjusted rate will slow down the progress of dirty pages going
back to setpoint).
2) limit the step size. task_ratelimit is changing values step by step,
leaving a consistent trace comparing to the randomly jumping
balanced_dirty_ratelimit. task_ratelimit also has the nice smaller
errors in stable state and typically larger errors when there are big
errors in rate. So it's a pretty good limiting factor for the step
size of dirty_ratelimit.
Note that bdi->dirty_ratelimit is always tracking balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
task_ratelimit is merely used as a limiting factor.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-08-26 15:53:24 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-03-02 17:22:49 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty rate control
It's all about bdi->dirty_ratelimit, which aims to be (write_bw / N)
when there are N dd tasks.
On write() syscall, use bdi->dirty_ratelimit
============================================
balance_dirty_pages(pages_dirtied)
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
pause = pages_dirtied / task_ratelimit;
sleep(pause);
}
On every 200ms, update bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit()
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit * write_bw / dirty_rate;
bdi->dirty_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
}
Estimation of balanced bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
balanced task_ratelimit
-----------------------
balance_dirty_pages() needs to throttle tasks dirtying pages such that
the total amount of dirty pages stays below the specified dirty limit in
order to avoid memory deadlocks. Furthermore we desire fairness in that
tasks get throttled proportionally to the amount of pages they dirty.
IOW we want to throttle tasks such that we match the dirty rate to the
writeout bandwidth, this yields a stable amount of dirty pages:
dirty_rate == write_bw (1)
The fairness requirement gives us:
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
== write_bw / N (2)
where N is the number of dd tasks. We don't know N beforehand, but
still can estimate balanced_dirty_ratelimit within 200ms.
Start by throttling each dd task at rate
task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 (3)
(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_0 (4)
Or
task_ratelimit_0 == dirty_rate / N (5)
Now we conclude that the balanced task ratelimit can be estimated by
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 * ---------- (6)
dirty_rate
Because with (4) and (5) we can get the desired equality (1):
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit == (dirty_rate / N) * ----------
dirty_rate
== write_bw / N
Then using the balanced task ratelimit we can compute task pause times like:
task_pause = task->nr_dirtied / task_ratelimit
task_ratelimit with position control
------------------------------------
However, while the above gives us means of matching the dirty rate to
the writeout bandwidth, it at best provides us with a stable dirty page
count (assuming a static system). In order to control the dirty page
count such that it is high enough to provide performance, but does not
exceed the specified limit we need another control.
The dirty position control works by extending (2) to
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (7)
where pos_ratio is a negative feedback function that subjects to
1) f(setpoint) = 1.0
2) df/dx < 0
That is, if the dirty pages are ABOVE the setpoint, we throttle each
task a bit more HEAVY than balanced_dirty_ratelimit, so that the dirty
pages are created less fast than they are cleaned, thus DROP to the
setpoints (and the reverse).
Based on (7) and the assumption that both dirty_ratelimit and pos_ratio
remains CONSTANT for the past 200ms, we get
task_ratelimit_0 = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (8)
Putting (8) into (6), we get the formula used in
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit():
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit *= pos_ratio * ---------- (9)
dirty_rate
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-12 10:51:31 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-29 11:22:30 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-03-02 15:54:09 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-10-03 20:46:17 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-03-02 15:54:09 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-29 11:22:30 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty rate control
It's all about bdi->dirty_ratelimit, which aims to be (write_bw / N)
when there are N dd tasks.
On write() syscall, use bdi->dirty_ratelimit
============================================
balance_dirty_pages(pages_dirtied)
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
pause = pages_dirtied / task_ratelimit;
sleep(pause);
}
On every 200ms, update bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit()
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit * write_bw / dirty_rate;
bdi->dirty_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
}
Estimation of balanced bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
balanced task_ratelimit
-----------------------
balance_dirty_pages() needs to throttle tasks dirtying pages such that
the total amount of dirty pages stays below the specified dirty limit in
order to avoid memory deadlocks. Furthermore we desire fairness in that
tasks get throttled proportionally to the amount of pages they dirty.
IOW we want to throttle tasks such that we match the dirty rate to the
writeout bandwidth, this yields a stable amount of dirty pages:
dirty_rate == write_bw (1)
The fairness requirement gives us:
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
== write_bw / N (2)
where N is the number of dd tasks. We don't know N beforehand, but
still can estimate balanced_dirty_ratelimit within 200ms.
Start by throttling each dd task at rate
task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 (3)
(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_0 (4)
Or
task_ratelimit_0 == dirty_rate / N (5)
Now we conclude that the balanced task ratelimit can be estimated by
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 * ---------- (6)
dirty_rate
Because with (4) and (5) we can get the desired equality (1):
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit == (dirty_rate / N) * ----------
dirty_rate
== write_bw / N
Then using the balanced task ratelimit we can compute task pause times like:
task_pause = task->nr_dirtied / task_ratelimit
task_ratelimit with position control
------------------------------------
However, while the above gives us means of matching the dirty rate to
the writeout bandwidth, it at best provides us with a stable dirty page
count (assuming a static system). In order to control the dirty page
count such that it is high enough to provide performance, but does not
exceed the specified limit we need another control.
The dirty position control works by extending (2) to
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (7)
where pos_ratio is a negative feedback function that subjects to
1) f(setpoint) = 1.0
2) df/dx < 0
That is, if the dirty pages are ABOVE the setpoint, we throttle each
task a bit more HEAVY than balanced_dirty_ratelimit, so that the dirty
pages are created less fast than they are cleaned, thus DROP to the
setpoints (and the reverse).
Based on (7) and the assumption that both dirty_ratelimit and pos_ratio
remains CONSTANT for the past 200ms, we get
task_ratelimit_0 = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (8)
Putting (8) into (6), we get the formula used in
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit():
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit *= pos_ratio * ---------- (9)
dirty_rate
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-12 10:51:31 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-29 11:22:30 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty rate control
It's all about bdi->dirty_ratelimit, which aims to be (write_bw / N)
when there are N dd tasks.
On write() syscall, use bdi->dirty_ratelimit
============================================
balance_dirty_pages(pages_dirtied)
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
pause = pages_dirtied / task_ratelimit;
sleep(pause);
}
On every 200ms, update bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit()
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit * write_bw / dirty_rate;
bdi->dirty_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
}
Estimation of balanced bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
balanced task_ratelimit
-----------------------
balance_dirty_pages() needs to throttle tasks dirtying pages such that
the total amount of dirty pages stays below the specified dirty limit in
order to avoid memory deadlocks. Furthermore we desire fairness in that
tasks get throttled proportionally to the amount of pages they dirty.
IOW we want to throttle tasks such that we match the dirty rate to the
writeout bandwidth, this yields a stable amount of dirty pages:
dirty_rate == write_bw (1)
The fairness requirement gives us:
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
== write_bw / N (2)
where N is the number of dd tasks. We don't know N beforehand, but
still can estimate balanced_dirty_ratelimit within 200ms.
Start by throttling each dd task at rate
task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 (3)
(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_0 (4)
Or
task_ratelimit_0 == dirty_rate / N (5)
Now we conclude that the balanced task ratelimit can be estimated by
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 * ---------- (6)
dirty_rate
Because with (4) and (5) we can get the desired equality (1):
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit == (dirty_rate / N) * ----------
dirty_rate
== write_bw / N
Then using the balanced task ratelimit we can compute task pause times like:
task_pause = task->nr_dirtied / task_ratelimit
task_ratelimit with position control
------------------------------------
However, while the above gives us means of matching the dirty rate to
the writeout bandwidth, it at best provides us with a stable dirty page
count (assuming a static system). In order to control the dirty page
count such that it is high enough to provide performance, but does not
exceed the specified limit we need another control.
The dirty position control works by extending (2) to
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (7)
where pos_ratio is a negative feedback function that subjects to
1) f(setpoint) = 1.0
2) df/dx < 0
That is, if the dirty pages are ABOVE the setpoint, we throttle each
task a bit more HEAVY than balanced_dirty_ratelimit, so that the dirty
pages are created less fast than they are cleaned, thus DROP to the
setpoints (and the reverse).
Based on (7) and the assumption that both dirty_ratelimit and pos_ratio
remains CONSTANT for the past 200ms, we get
task_ratelimit_0 = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (8)
Putting (8) into (6), we get the formula used in
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit():
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit *= pos_ratio * ---------- (9)
dirty_rate
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-12 10:51:31 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-29 11:22:30 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty rate control
It's all about bdi->dirty_ratelimit, which aims to be (write_bw / N)
when there are N dd tasks.
On write() syscall, use bdi->dirty_ratelimit
============================================
balance_dirty_pages(pages_dirtied)
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
pause = pages_dirtied / task_ratelimit;
sleep(pause);
}
On every 200ms, update bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit()
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit * write_bw / dirty_rate;
bdi->dirty_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
}
Estimation of balanced bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
balanced task_ratelimit
-----------------------
balance_dirty_pages() needs to throttle tasks dirtying pages such that
the total amount of dirty pages stays below the specified dirty limit in
order to avoid memory deadlocks. Furthermore we desire fairness in that
tasks get throttled proportionally to the amount of pages they dirty.
IOW we want to throttle tasks such that we match the dirty rate to the
writeout bandwidth, this yields a stable amount of dirty pages:
dirty_rate == write_bw (1)
The fairness requirement gives us:
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
== write_bw / N (2)
where N is the number of dd tasks. We don't know N beforehand, but
still can estimate balanced_dirty_ratelimit within 200ms.
Start by throttling each dd task at rate
task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 (3)
(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_0 (4)
Or
task_ratelimit_0 == dirty_rate / N (5)
Now we conclude that the balanced task ratelimit can be estimated by
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 * ---------- (6)
dirty_rate
Because with (4) and (5) we can get the desired equality (1):
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit == (dirty_rate / N) * ----------
dirty_rate
== write_bw / N
Then using the balanced task ratelimit we can compute task pause times like:
task_pause = task->nr_dirtied / task_ratelimit
task_ratelimit with position control
------------------------------------
However, while the above gives us means of matching the dirty rate to
the writeout bandwidth, it at best provides us with a stable dirty page
count (assuming a static system). In order to control the dirty page
count such that it is high enough to provide performance, but does not
exceed the specified limit we need another control.
The dirty position control works by extending (2) to
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (7)
where pos_ratio is a negative feedback function that subjects to
1) f(setpoint) = 1.0
2) df/dx < 0
That is, if the dirty pages are ABOVE the setpoint, we throttle each
task a bit more HEAVY than balanced_dirty_ratelimit, so that the dirty
pages are created less fast than they are cleaned, thus DROP to the
setpoints (and the reverse).
Based on (7) and the assumption that both dirty_ratelimit and pos_ratio
remains CONSTANT for the past 200ms, we get
task_ratelimit_0 = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (8)
Putting (8) into (6), we get the formula used in
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit():
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit *= pos_ratio * ---------- (9)
dirty_rate
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-12 10:51:31 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-03-02 15:54:09 -06:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty rate control
It's all about bdi->dirty_ratelimit, which aims to be (write_bw / N)
when there are N dd tasks.
On write() syscall, use bdi->dirty_ratelimit
============================================
balance_dirty_pages(pages_dirtied)
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
pause = pages_dirtied / task_ratelimit;
sleep(pause);
}
On every 200ms, update bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit()
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit * write_bw / dirty_rate;
bdi->dirty_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
}
Estimation of balanced bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
balanced task_ratelimit
-----------------------
balance_dirty_pages() needs to throttle tasks dirtying pages such that
the total amount of dirty pages stays below the specified dirty limit in
order to avoid memory deadlocks. Furthermore we desire fairness in that
tasks get throttled proportionally to the amount of pages they dirty.
IOW we want to throttle tasks such that we match the dirty rate to the
writeout bandwidth, this yields a stable amount of dirty pages:
dirty_rate == write_bw (1)
The fairness requirement gives us:
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
== write_bw / N (2)
where N is the number of dd tasks. We don't know N beforehand, but
still can estimate balanced_dirty_ratelimit within 200ms.
Start by throttling each dd task at rate
task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 (3)
(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_0 (4)
Or
task_ratelimit_0 == dirty_rate / N (5)
Now we conclude that the balanced task ratelimit can be estimated by
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 * ---------- (6)
dirty_rate
Because with (4) and (5) we can get the desired equality (1):
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit == (dirty_rate / N) * ----------
dirty_rate
== write_bw / N
Then using the balanced task ratelimit we can compute task pause times like:
task_pause = task->nr_dirtied / task_ratelimit
task_ratelimit with position control
------------------------------------
However, while the above gives us means of matching the dirty rate to
the writeout bandwidth, it at best provides us with a stable dirty page
count (assuming a static system). In order to control the dirty page
count such that it is high enough to provide performance, but does not
exceed the specified limit we need another control.
The dirty position control works by extending (2) to
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (7)
where pos_ratio is a negative feedback function that subjects to
1) f(setpoint) = 1.0
2) df/dx < 0
That is, if the dirty pages are ABOVE the setpoint, we throttle each
task a bit more HEAVY than balanced_dirty_ratelimit, so that the dirty
pages are created less fast than they are cleaned, thus DROP to the
setpoints (and the reverse).
Based on (7) and the assumption that both dirty_ratelimit and pos_ratio
remains CONSTANT for the past 200ms, we get
task_ratelimit_0 = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (8)
Putting (8) into (6), we get the formula used in
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit():
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit *= pos_ratio * ---------- (9)
dirty_rate
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-12 10:51:31 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-29 11:22:30 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: dirty rate control
It's all about bdi->dirty_ratelimit, which aims to be (write_bw / N)
when there are N dd tasks.
On write() syscall, use bdi->dirty_ratelimit
============================================
balance_dirty_pages(pages_dirtied)
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
pause = pages_dirtied / task_ratelimit;
sleep(pause);
}
On every 200ms, update bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit()
{
task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit * write_bw / dirty_rate;
bdi->dirty_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
}
Estimation of balanced bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================
balanced task_ratelimit
-----------------------
balance_dirty_pages() needs to throttle tasks dirtying pages such that
the total amount of dirty pages stays below the specified dirty limit in
order to avoid memory deadlocks. Furthermore we desire fairness in that
tasks get throttled proportionally to the amount of pages they dirty.
IOW we want to throttle tasks such that we match the dirty rate to the
writeout bandwidth, this yields a stable amount of dirty pages:
dirty_rate == write_bw (1)
The fairness requirement gives us:
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
== write_bw / N (2)
where N is the number of dd tasks. We don't know N beforehand, but
still can estimate balanced_dirty_ratelimit within 200ms.
Start by throttling each dd task at rate
task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 (3)
(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_0 (4)
Or
task_ratelimit_0 == dirty_rate / N (5)
Now we conclude that the balanced task ratelimit can be estimated by
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 * ---------- (6)
dirty_rate
Because with (4) and (5) we can get the desired equality (1):
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit == (dirty_rate / N) * ----------
dirty_rate
== write_bw / N
Then using the balanced task ratelimit we can compute task pause times like:
task_pause = task->nr_dirtied / task_ratelimit
task_ratelimit with position control
------------------------------------
However, while the above gives us means of matching the dirty rate to
the writeout bandwidth, it at best provides us with a stable dirty page
count (assuming a static system). In order to control the dirty page
count such that it is high enough to provide performance, but does not
exceed the specified limit we need another control.
The dirty position control works by extending (2) to
task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (7)
where pos_ratio is a negative feedback function that subjects to
1) f(setpoint) = 1.0
2) df/dx < 0
That is, if the dirty pages are ABOVE the setpoint, we throttle each
task a bit more HEAVY than balanced_dirty_ratelimit, so that the dirty
pages are created less fast than they are cleaned, thus DROP to the
setpoints (and the reverse).
Based on (7) and the assumption that both dirty_ratelimit and pos_ratio
remains CONSTANT for the past 200ms, we get
task_ratelimit_0 = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio (8)
Putting (8) into (6), we get the formula used in
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit():
write_bw
balanced_dirty_ratelimit *= pos_ratio * ---------- (9)
dirty_rate
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-12 10:51:31 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-29 11:22:30 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-03-02 15:54:09 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-10-03 20:46:17 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-03-02 15:54:09 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-29 11:22:30 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-10-03 20:46:17 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-29 11:22:30 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: per task dirty rate limit
Add two fields to task_struct.
1) account dirtied pages in the individual tasks, for accuracy
2) per-task balance_dirty_pages() call intervals, for flexibility
The balance_dirty_pages() call interval (ie. nr_dirtied_pause) will
scale near-sqrt to the safety gap between dirty pages and threshold.
The main problem of per-task nr_dirtied is, if 1k+ tasks start dirtying
pages at exactly the same time, each task will be assigned a large
initial nr_dirtied_pause, so that the dirty threshold will be exceeded
long before each task reached its nr_dirtied_pause and hence call
balance_dirty_pages().
The solution is to watch for the number of pages dirtied on each CPU in
between the calls into balance_dirty_pages(). If it exceeds ratelimit_pages
(3% dirty threshold), force call balance_dirty_pages() for a chance to
set bdi->dirty_exceeded. In normal situations, this safeguarding
condition is not expected to trigger at all.
On the sqrt in dirty_poll_interval():
It will serve as an initial guess when dirty pages are still in the
freerun area.
When dirty pages are floating inside the dirty control scope [freerun,
limit], a followup patch will use some refined dirty poll interval to
get the desired pause time.
thresh-dirty (MB) sqrt
1 16
2 22
4 32
8 45
16 64
32 90
64 128
128 181
256 256
512 362
1024 512
The above table means, given 1MB (or 1GB) gap and the dd tasks polling
balance_dirty_pages() on every 16 (or 512) pages, the dirty limit won't
be exceeded as long as there are less than 16 (or 512) concurrent dd's.
So sqrt naturally leads to less overheads and more safe concurrent tasks
for large memory servers, which have large (thresh-freerun) gaps.
peter: keep the per-CPU ratelimit for safeguarding the 1k+ tasks case
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Reviewed-by: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-11 18:10:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2012-12-11 16:00:21 -08:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: per task dirty rate limit
Add two fields to task_struct.
1) account dirtied pages in the individual tasks, for accuracy
2) per-task balance_dirty_pages() call intervals, for flexibility
The balance_dirty_pages() call interval (ie. nr_dirtied_pause) will
scale near-sqrt to the safety gap between dirty pages and threshold.
The main problem of per-task nr_dirtied is, if 1k+ tasks start dirtying
pages at exactly the same time, each task will be assigned a large
initial nr_dirtied_pause, so that the dirty threshold will be exceeded
long before each task reached its nr_dirtied_pause and hence call
balance_dirty_pages().
The solution is to watch for the number of pages dirtied on each CPU in
between the calls into balance_dirty_pages(). If it exceeds ratelimit_pages
(3% dirty threshold), force call balance_dirty_pages() for a chance to
set bdi->dirty_exceeded. In normal situations, this safeguarding
condition is not expected to trigger at all.
On the sqrt in dirty_poll_interval():
It will serve as an initial guess when dirty pages are still in the
freerun area.
When dirty pages are floating inside the dirty control scope [freerun,
limit], a followup patch will use some refined dirty poll interval to
get the desired pause time.
thresh-dirty (MB) sqrt
1 16
2 22
4 32
8 45
16 64
32 90
64 128
128 181
256 256
512 362
1024 512
The above table means, given 1MB (or 1GB) gap and the dd tasks polling
balance_dirty_pages() on every 16 (or 512) pages, the dirty limit won't
be exceeded as long as there are less than 16 (or 512) concurrent dd's.
So sqrt naturally leads to less overheads and more safe concurrent tasks
for large memory servers, which have large (thresh-freerun) gaps.
peter: keep the per-CPU ratelimit for safeguarding the 1k+ tasks case
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Reviewed-by: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-11 18:10:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-10-16 13:47:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:21:43 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2013-10-16 13:47:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:21:43 -06:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-10-16 13:47:03 -07:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:21:43 -06:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:21:43 -06:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:21:43 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:21:43 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:21:43 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:21:43 -06:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:21:43 -06:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:21:43 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-12-06 13:17:17 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:21:43 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-12-06 13:17:17 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:21:43 -06:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:21:43 -06:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:21:43 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-12-06 13:17:17 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:21:43 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mm/page-writeback.c: add strictlimit feature
The feature prevents mistrusted filesystems (ie: FUSE mounts created by
unprivileged users) to grow a large number of dirty pages before
throttling. For such filesystems balance_dirty_pages always check bdi
counters against bdi limits. I.e. even if global "nr_dirty" is under
"freerun", it's not allowed to skip bdi checks. The only use case for now
is fuse: it sets bdi max_ratio to 1% by default and system administrators
are supposed to expect that this limit won't be exceeded.
The feature is on if a BDI is marked by BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT flag. A
filesystem may set the flag when it initializes its BDI.
The problematic scenario comes from the fact that nobody pays attention to
the NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP counter (i.e. number of pages under fuse
writeback). The implementation of fuse writeback releases original page
(by calling end_page_writeback) almost immediately. A fuse request queued
for real processing bears a copy of original page. Hence, if userspace
fuse daemon doesn't finalize write requests in timely manner, an
aggressive mmap writer can pollute virtually all memory by those temporary
fuse page copies. They are carefully accounted in NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP, but
nobody cares.
To make further explanations shorter, let me use "NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP
problem" as a shortcut for "a possibility of uncontrolled grow of amount
of RAM consumed by temporary pages allocated by kernel fuse to process
writeback".
The problem was very easy to reproduce. There is a trivial example
filesystem implementation in fuse userspace distribution: fusexmp_fh.c. I
added "sleep(1);" to the write methods, then recompiled and mounted it.
Then created a huge file on the mount point and run a simple program which
mmap-ed the file to a memory region, then wrote a data to the region. An
hour later I observed almost all RAM consumed by fuse writeback. Since
then some unrelated changes in kernel fuse made it more difficult to
reproduce, but it is still possible now.
Putting this theoretical happens-in-the-lab thing aside, there is another
thing that really hurts real world (FUSE) users. This is write-through
page cache policy FUSE currently uses. I.e. handling write(2), kernel
fuse populates page cache and flushes user data to the server
synchronously. This is excessively suboptimal. Pavel Emelyanov's patches
("writeback cache policy") solve the problem, but they also make resolving
NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP problem absolutely necessary. Otherwise, simply copying
a huge file to a fuse mount would result in memory starvation. Miklos,
the maintainer of FUSE, believes strictlimit feature the way to go.
And eventually putting FUSE topics aside, there is one more use-case for
strictlimit feature. Using a slow USB stick (mass storage) in a machine
with huge amount of RAM installed is a well-known pain. Let's make simple
computations. Assuming 64GB of RAM installed, existing implementation of
balance_dirty_pages will start throttling only after 9.6GB of RAM becomes
dirty (freerun == 15% of total RAM). So, the command "cp 9GB_file
/media/my-usb-storage/" may return in a few seconds, but subsequent
"umount /media/my-usb-storage/" will take more than two hours if effective
throughput of the storage is, to say, 1MB/sec.
After inclusion of strictlimit feature, it will be trivial to add a knob
(e.g. /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/x:y/strictlimit) to enable it on demand.
Manually or via udev rule. May be I'm wrong, but it seems to be quite a
natural desire to limit the amount of dirty memory for some devices we are
not fully trust (in the sense of sustainable throughput).
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning in page-writeback.c]
Signed-off-by: Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@parallels.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-09-11 14:22:46 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
As proposed by Chris, Dave and Jan, don't start foreground writeback IO
inside balance_dirty_pages(). Instead, simply let it idle sleep for some
time to throttle the dirtying task. In the mean while, kick off the
per-bdi flusher thread to do background writeback IO.
RATIONALS
=========
- disk seeks on concurrent writeback of multiple inodes (Dave Chinner)
If every thread doing writes and being throttled start foreground
writeback, it leads to N IO submitters from at least N different
inodes at the same time, end up with N different sets of IO being
issued with potentially zero locality to each other, resulting in
much lower elevator sort/merge efficiency and hence we seek the disk
all over the place to service the different sets of IO.
OTOH, if there is only one submission thread, it doesn't jump between
inodes in the same way when congestion clears - it keeps writing to
the same inode, resulting in large related chunks of sequential IOs
being issued to the disk. This is more efficient than the above
foreground writeback because the elevator works better and the disk
seeks less.
- lock contention and cache bouncing on concurrent IO submitters (Dave Chinner)
With this patchset, the fs_mark benchmark on a 12-drive software RAID0 goes
from CPU bound to IO bound, freeing "3-4 CPUs worth of spinlock contention".
* "CPU usage has dropped by ~55%", "it certainly appears that most of
the CPU time saving comes from the removal of contention on the
inode_wb_list_lock" (IMHO at least 10% comes from the reduction of
cacheline bouncing, because the new code is able to call much less
frequently into balance_dirty_pages() and hence access the global
page states)
* the user space "App overhead" is reduced by 20%, by avoiding the
cacheline pollution by the complex writeback code path
* "for a ~5% throughput reduction", "the number of write IOs have
dropped by ~25%", and the elapsed time reduced from 41:42.17 to
40:53.23.
* On a simple test of 100 dd, it reduces the CPU %system time from 30% to 3%,
and improves IO throughput from 38MB/s to 42MB/s.
- IO size too small for fast arrays and too large for slow USB sticks
The write_chunk used by current balance_dirty_pages() cannot be
directly set to some large value (eg. 128MB) for better IO efficiency.
Because it could lead to more than 1 second user perceivable stalls.
Even the current 4MB write size may be too large for slow USB sticks.
The fact that balance_dirty_pages() starts IO on itself couples the
IO size to wait time, which makes it hard to do suitable IO size while
keeping the wait time under control.
Now it's possible to increase writeback chunk size proportional to the
disk bandwidth. In a simple test of 50 dd's on XFS, 1-HDD, 3GB ram,
the larger writeback size dramatically reduces the seek count to 1/10
(far beyond my expectation) and improves the write throughput by 24%.
- long block time in balance_dirty_pages() hurts desktop responsiveness
Many of us may have the experience: it often takes a couple of seconds
or even long time to stop a heavy writing dd/cp/tar command with
Ctrl-C or "kill -9".
- IO pipeline broken by bumpy write() progress
There are a broad class of "loop {read(buf); write(buf);}" applications
whose read() pipeline will be under-utilized or even come to a stop if
the write()s have long latencies _or_ don't progress in a constant rate.
The current threshold based throttling inherently transfers the large
low level IO completion fluctuations to bumpy application write()s,
and further deteriorates with increasing number of dirtiers and/or bdi's.
For example, when doing 50 dd's + 1 remote rsync to an XFS partition,
the rsync progresses very bumpy in legacy kernel, and throughput is
improved by 67% by this patchset. (plus the larger write chunk size,
it will be 93% speedup).
The new rate based throttling can support 1000+ dd's with excellent
smoothness, low latency and low overheads.
For the above reasons, it's much better to do IO-less and low latency
pauses in balance_dirty_pages().
Jan Kara, Dave Chinner and me explored the scheme to let
balance_dirty_pages() wait for enough writeback IO completions to
safeguard the dirty limit. However it's found to have two problems:
- in large NUMA systems, the per-cpu counters may have big accounting
errors, leading to big throttle wait time and jitters.
- NFS may kill large amount of unstable pages with one single COMMIT.
Because NFS server serves COMMIT with expensive fsync() IOs, it is
desirable to delay and reduce the number of COMMITs. So it's not
likely to optimize away such kind of bursty IO completions, and the
resulted large (and tiny) stall times in IO completion based throttling.
So here is a pause time oriented approach, which tries to control the
pause time in each balance_dirty_pages() invocations, by controlling
the number of pages dirtied before calling balance_dirty_pages(), for
smooth and efficient dirty throttling:
- avoid useless (eg. zero pause time) balance_dirty_pages() calls
- avoid too small pause time (less than 4ms, which burns CPU power)
- avoid too large pause time (more than 200ms, which hurts responsiveness)
- avoid big fluctuations of pause times
It can control pause times at will. The default policy (in a followup
patch) will be to do ~10ms pauses in 1-dd case, and increase to ~100ms
in 1000-dd case.
BEHAVIOR CHANGE
===============
(1) dirty threshold
Users will notice that the applications will get throttled once crossing
the global (background + dirty)/2=15% threshold, and then balanced around
17.5%. Before patch, the behavior is to just throttle it at 20% dirtyable
memory in 1-dd case.
Since the task will be soft throttled earlier than before, it may be
perceived by end users as performance "slow down" if his application
happens to dirty more than 15% dirtyable memory.
(2) smoothness/responsiveness
Users will notice a more responsive system during heavy writeback.
"killall dd" will take effect instantly.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2010-08-27 18:45:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2009-09-23 19:37:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-09-23 21:56:00 +08:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
As proposed by Chris, Dave and Jan, don't start foreground writeback IO
inside balance_dirty_pages(). Instead, simply let it idle sleep for some
time to throttle the dirtying task. In the mean while, kick off the
per-bdi flusher thread to do background writeback IO.
RATIONALS
=========
- disk seeks on concurrent writeback of multiple inodes (Dave Chinner)
If every thread doing writes and being throttled start foreground
writeback, it leads to N IO submitters from at least N different
inodes at the same time, end up with N different sets of IO being
issued with potentially zero locality to each other, resulting in
much lower elevator sort/merge efficiency and hence we seek the disk
all over the place to service the different sets of IO.
OTOH, if there is only one submission thread, it doesn't jump between
inodes in the same way when congestion clears - it keeps writing to
the same inode, resulting in large related chunks of sequential IOs
being issued to the disk. This is more efficient than the above
foreground writeback because the elevator works better and the disk
seeks less.
- lock contention and cache bouncing on concurrent IO submitters (Dave Chinner)
With this patchset, the fs_mark benchmark on a 12-drive software RAID0 goes
from CPU bound to IO bound, freeing "3-4 CPUs worth of spinlock contention".
* "CPU usage has dropped by ~55%", "it certainly appears that most of
the CPU time saving comes from the removal of contention on the
inode_wb_list_lock" (IMHO at least 10% comes from the reduction of
cacheline bouncing, because the new code is able to call much less
frequently into balance_dirty_pages() and hence access the global
page states)
* the user space "App overhead" is reduced by 20%, by avoiding the
cacheline pollution by the complex writeback code path
* "for a ~5% throughput reduction", "the number of write IOs have
dropped by ~25%", and the elapsed time reduced from 41:42.17 to
40:53.23.
* On a simple test of 100 dd, it reduces the CPU %system time from 30% to 3%,
and improves IO throughput from 38MB/s to 42MB/s.
- IO size too small for fast arrays and too large for slow USB sticks
The write_chunk used by current balance_dirty_pages() cannot be
directly set to some large value (eg. 128MB) for better IO efficiency.
Because it could lead to more than 1 second user perceivable stalls.
Even the current 4MB write size may be too large for slow USB sticks.
The fact that balance_dirty_pages() starts IO on itself couples the
IO size to wait time, which makes it hard to do suitable IO size while
keeping the wait time under control.
Now it's possible to increase writeback chunk size proportional to the
disk bandwidth. In a simple test of 50 dd's on XFS, 1-HDD, 3GB ram,
the larger writeback size dramatically reduces the seek count to 1/10
(far beyond my expectation) and improves the write throughput by 24%.
- long block time in balance_dirty_pages() hurts desktop responsiveness
Many of us may have the experience: it often takes a couple of seconds
or even long time to stop a heavy writing dd/cp/tar command with
Ctrl-C or "kill -9".
- IO pipeline broken by bumpy write() progress
There are a broad class of "loop {read(buf); write(buf);}" applications
whose read() pipeline will be under-utilized or even come to a stop if
the write()s have long latencies _or_ don't progress in a constant rate.
The current threshold based throttling inherently transfers the large
low level IO completion fluctuations to bumpy application write()s,
and further deteriorates with increasing number of dirtiers and/or bdi's.
For example, when doing 50 dd's + 1 remote rsync to an XFS partition,
the rsync progresses very bumpy in legacy kernel, and throughput is
improved by 67% by this patchset. (plus the larger write chunk size,
it will be 93% speedup).
The new rate based throttling can support 1000+ dd's with excellent
smoothness, low latency and low overheads.
For the above reasons, it's much better to do IO-less and low latency
pauses in balance_dirty_pages().
Jan Kara, Dave Chinner and me explored the scheme to let
balance_dirty_pages() wait for enough writeback IO completions to
safeguard the dirty limit. However it's found to have two problems:
- in large NUMA systems, the per-cpu counters may have big accounting
errors, leading to big throttle wait time and jitters.
- NFS may kill large amount of unstable pages with one single COMMIT.
Because NFS server serves COMMIT with expensive fsync() IOs, it is
desirable to delay and reduce the number of COMMITs. So it's not
likely to optimize away such kind of bursty IO completions, and the
resulted large (and tiny) stall times in IO completion based throttling.
So here is a pause time oriented approach, which tries to control the
pause time in each balance_dirty_pages() invocations, by controlling
the number of pages dirtied before calling balance_dirty_pages(), for
smooth and efficient dirty throttling:
- avoid useless (eg. zero pause time) balance_dirty_pages() calls
- avoid too small pause time (less than 4ms, which burns CPU power)
- avoid too large pause time (more than 200ms, which hurts responsiveness)
- avoid big fluctuations of pause times
It can control pause times at will. The default policy (in a followup
patch) will be to do ~10ms pauses in 1-dd case, and increase to ~100ms
in 1000-dd case.
BEHAVIOR CHANGE
===============
(1) dirty threshold
Users will notice that the applications will get throttled once crossing
the global (background + dirty)/2=15% threshold, and then balanced around
17.5%. Before patch, the behavior is to just throttle it at 20% dirtyable
memory in 1-dd case.
Since the task will be soft throttled earlier than before, it may be
perceived by end users as performance "slow down" if his application
happens to dirty more than 15% dirtyable memory.
(2) smoothness/responsiveness
Users will notice a more responsive system during heavy writeback.
"killall dd" will take effect instantly.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2010-08-27 18:45:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
As proposed by Chris, Dave and Jan, don't start foreground writeback IO
inside balance_dirty_pages(). Instead, simply let it idle sleep for some
time to throttle the dirtying task. In the mean while, kick off the
per-bdi flusher thread to do background writeback IO.
RATIONALS
=========
- disk seeks on concurrent writeback of multiple inodes (Dave Chinner)
If every thread doing writes and being throttled start foreground
writeback, it leads to N IO submitters from at least N different
inodes at the same time, end up with N different sets of IO being
issued with potentially zero locality to each other, resulting in
much lower elevator sort/merge efficiency and hence we seek the disk
all over the place to service the different sets of IO.
OTOH, if there is only one submission thread, it doesn't jump between
inodes in the same way when congestion clears - it keeps writing to
the same inode, resulting in large related chunks of sequential IOs
being issued to the disk. This is more efficient than the above
foreground writeback because the elevator works better and the disk
seeks less.
- lock contention and cache bouncing on concurrent IO submitters (Dave Chinner)
With this patchset, the fs_mark benchmark on a 12-drive software RAID0 goes
from CPU bound to IO bound, freeing "3-4 CPUs worth of spinlock contention".
* "CPU usage has dropped by ~55%", "it certainly appears that most of
the CPU time saving comes from the removal of contention on the
inode_wb_list_lock" (IMHO at least 10% comes from the reduction of
cacheline bouncing, because the new code is able to call much less
frequently into balance_dirty_pages() and hence access the global
page states)
* the user space "App overhead" is reduced by 20%, by avoiding the
cacheline pollution by the complex writeback code path
* "for a ~5% throughput reduction", "the number of write IOs have
dropped by ~25%", and the elapsed time reduced from 41:42.17 to
40:53.23.
* On a simple test of 100 dd, it reduces the CPU %system time from 30% to 3%,
and improves IO throughput from 38MB/s to 42MB/s.
- IO size too small for fast arrays and too large for slow USB sticks
The write_chunk used by current balance_dirty_pages() cannot be
directly set to some large value (eg. 128MB) for better IO efficiency.
Because it could lead to more than 1 second user perceivable stalls.
Even the current 4MB write size may be too large for slow USB sticks.
The fact that balance_dirty_pages() starts IO on itself couples the
IO size to wait time, which makes it hard to do suitable IO size while
keeping the wait time under control.
Now it's possible to increase writeback chunk size proportional to the
disk bandwidth. In a simple test of 50 dd's on XFS, 1-HDD, 3GB ram,
the larger writeback size dramatically reduces the seek count to 1/10
(far beyond my expectation) and improves the write throughput by 24%.
- long block time in balance_dirty_pages() hurts desktop responsiveness
Many of us may have the experience: it often takes a couple of seconds
or even long time to stop a heavy writing dd/cp/tar command with
Ctrl-C or "kill -9".
- IO pipeline broken by bumpy write() progress
There are a broad class of "loop {read(buf); write(buf);}" applications
whose read() pipeline will be under-utilized or even come to a stop if
the write()s have long latencies _or_ don't progress in a constant rate.
The current threshold based throttling inherently transfers the large
low level IO completion fluctuations to bumpy application write()s,
and further deteriorates with increasing number of dirtiers and/or bdi's.
For example, when doing 50 dd's + 1 remote rsync to an XFS partition,
the rsync progresses very bumpy in legacy kernel, and throughput is
improved by 67% by this patchset. (plus the larger write chunk size,
it will be 93% speedup).
The new rate based throttling can support 1000+ dd's with excellent
smoothness, low latency and low overheads.
For the above reasons, it's much better to do IO-less and low latency
pauses in balance_dirty_pages().
Jan Kara, Dave Chinner and me explored the scheme to let
balance_dirty_pages() wait for enough writeback IO completions to
safeguard the dirty limit. However it's found to have two problems:
- in large NUMA systems, the per-cpu counters may have big accounting
errors, leading to big throttle wait time and jitters.
- NFS may kill large amount of unstable pages with one single COMMIT.
Because NFS server serves COMMIT with expensive fsync() IOs, it is
desirable to delay and reduce the number of COMMITs. So it's not
likely to optimize away such kind of bursty IO completions, and the
resulted large (and tiny) stall times in IO completion based throttling.
So here is a pause time oriented approach, which tries to control the
pause time in each balance_dirty_pages() invocations, by controlling
the number of pages dirtied before calling balance_dirty_pages(), for
smooth and efficient dirty throttling:
- avoid useless (eg. zero pause time) balance_dirty_pages() calls
- avoid too small pause time (less than 4ms, which burns CPU power)
- avoid too large pause time (more than 200ms, which hurts responsiveness)
- avoid big fluctuations of pause times
It can control pause times at will. The default policy (in a followup
patch) will be to do ~10ms pauses in 1-dd case, and increase to ~100ms
in 1000-dd case.
BEHAVIOR CHANGE
===============
(1) dirty threshold
Users will notice that the applications will get throttled once crossing
the global (background + dirty)/2=15% threshold, and then balanced around
17.5%. Before patch, the behavior is to just throttle it at 20% dirtyable
memory in 1-dd case.
Since the task will be soft throttled earlier than before, it may be
perceived by end users as performance "slow down" if his application
happens to dirty more than 15% dirtyable memory.
(2) smoothness/responsiveness
Users will notice a more responsive system during heavy writeback.
"killall dd" will take effect instantly.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2010-08-27 18:45:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-09-12 13:34:05 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:29 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:25:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-11 14:17:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
As proposed by Chris, Dave and Jan, don't start foreground writeback IO
inside balance_dirty_pages(). Instead, simply let it idle sleep for some
time to throttle the dirtying task. In the mean while, kick off the
per-bdi flusher thread to do background writeback IO.
RATIONALS
=========
- disk seeks on concurrent writeback of multiple inodes (Dave Chinner)
If every thread doing writes and being throttled start foreground
writeback, it leads to N IO submitters from at least N different
inodes at the same time, end up with N different sets of IO being
issued with potentially zero locality to each other, resulting in
much lower elevator sort/merge efficiency and hence we seek the disk
all over the place to service the different sets of IO.
OTOH, if there is only one submission thread, it doesn't jump between
inodes in the same way when congestion clears - it keeps writing to
the same inode, resulting in large related chunks of sequential IOs
being issued to the disk. This is more efficient than the above
foreground writeback because the elevator works better and the disk
seeks less.
- lock contention and cache bouncing on concurrent IO submitters (Dave Chinner)
With this patchset, the fs_mark benchmark on a 12-drive software RAID0 goes
from CPU bound to IO bound, freeing "3-4 CPUs worth of spinlock contention".
* "CPU usage has dropped by ~55%", "it certainly appears that most of
the CPU time saving comes from the removal of contention on the
inode_wb_list_lock" (IMHO at least 10% comes from the reduction of
cacheline bouncing, because the new code is able to call much less
frequently into balance_dirty_pages() and hence access the global
page states)
* the user space "App overhead" is reduced by 20%, by avoiding the
cacheline pollution by the complex writeback code path
* "for a ~5% throughput reduction", "the number of write IOs have
dropped by ~25%", and the elapsed time reduced from 41:42.17 to
40:53.23.
* On a simple test of 100 dd, it reduces the CPU %system time from 30% to 3%,
and improves IO throughput from 38MB/s to 42MB/s.
- IO size too small for fast arrays and too large for slow USB sticks
The write_chunk used by current balance_dirty_pages() cannot be
directly set to some large value (eg. 128MB) for better IO efficiency.
Because it could lead to more than 1 second user perceivable stalls.
Even the current 4MB write size may be too large for slow USB sticks.
The fact that balance_dirty_pages() starts IO on itself couples the
IO size to wait time, which makes it hard to do suitable IO size while
keeping the wait time under control.
Now it's possible to increase writeback chunk size proportional to the
disk bandwidth. In a simple test of 50 dd's on XFS, 1-HDD, 3GB ram,
the larger writeback size dramatically reduces the seek count to 1/10
(far beyond my expectation) and improves the write throughput by 24%.
- long block time in balance_dirty_pages() hurts desktop responsiveness
Many of us may have the experience: it often takes a couple of seconds
or even long time to stop a heavy writing dd/cp/tar command with
Ctrl-C or "kill -9".
- IO pipeline broken by bumpy write() progress
There are a broad class of "loop {read(buf); write(buf);}" applications
whose read() pipeline will be under-utilized or even come to a stop if
the write()s have long latencies _or_ don't progress in a constant rate.
The current threshold based throttling inherently transfers the large
low level IO completion fluctuations to bumpy application write()s,
and further deteriorates with increasing number of dirtiers and/or bdi's.
For example, when doing 50 dd's + 1 remote rsync to an XFS partition,
the rsync progresses very bumpy in legacy kernel, and throughput is
improved by 67% by this patchset. (plus the larger write chunk size,
it will be 93% speedup).
The new rate based throttling can support 1000+ dd's with excellent
smoothness, low latency and low overheads.
For the above reasons, it's much better to do IO-less and low latency
pauses in balance_dirty_pages().
Jan Kara, Dave Chinner and me explored the scheme to let
balance_dirty_pages() wait for enough writeback IO completions to
safeguard the dirty limit. However it's found to have two problems:
- in large NUMA systems, the per-cpu counters may have big accounting
errors, leading to big throttle wait time and jitters.
- NFS may kill large amount of unstable pages with one single COMMIT.
Because NFS server serves COMMIT with expensive fsync() IOs, it is
desirable to delay and reduce the number of COMMITs. So it's not
likely to optimize away such kind of bursty IO completions, and the
resulted large (and tiny) stall times in IO completion based throttling.
So here is a pause time oriented approach, which tries to control the
pause time in each balance_dirty_pages() invocations, by controlling
the number of pages dirtied before calling balance_dirty_pages(), for
smooth and efficient dirty throttling:
- avoid useless (eg. zero pause time) balance_dirty_pages() calls
- avoid too small pause time (less than 4ms, which burns CPU power)
- avoid too large pause time (more than 200ms, which hurts responsiveness)
- avoid big fluctuations of pause times
It can control pause times at will. The default policy (in a followup
patch) will be to do ~10ms pauses in 1-dd case, and increase to ~100ms
in 1000-dd case.
BEHAVIOR CHANGE
===============
(1) dirty threshold
Users will notice that the applications will get throttled once crossing
the global (background + dirty)/2=15% threshold, and then balanced around
17.5%. Before patch, the behavior is to just throttle it at 20% dirtyable
memory in 1-dd case.
Since the task will be soft throttled earlier than before, it may be
perceived by end users as performance "slow down" if his application
happens to dirty more than 15% dirtyable memory.
(2) smoothness/responsiveness
Users will notice a more responsive system during heavy writeback.
"killall dd" will take effect instantly.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2010-08-27 18:45:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
As proposed by Chris, Dave and Jan, don't start foreground writeback IO
inside balance_dirty_pages(). Instead, simply let it idle sleep for some
time to throttle the dirtying task. In the mean while, kick off the
per-bdi flusher thread to do background writeback IO.
RATIONALS
=========
- disk seeks on concurrent writeback of multiple inodes (Dave Chinner)
If every thread doing writes and being throttled start foreground
writeback, it leads to N IO submitters from at least N different
inodes at the same time, end up with N different sets of IO being
issued with potentially zero locality to each other, resulting in
much lower elevator sort/merge efficiency and hence we seek the disk
all over the place to service the different sets of IO.
OTOH, if there is only one submission thread, it doesn't jump between
inodes in the same way when congestion clears - it keeps writing to
the same inode, resulting in large related chunks of sequential IOs
being issued to the disk. This is more efficient than the above
foreground writeback because the elevator works better and the disk
seeks less.
- lock contention and cache bouncing on concurrent IO submitters (Dave Chinner)
With this patchset, the fs_mark benchmark on a 12-drive software RAID0 goes
from CPU bound to IO bound, freeing "3-4 CPUs worth of spinlock contention".
* "CPU usage has dropped by ~55%", "it certainly appears that most of
the CPU time saving comes from the removal of contention on the
inode_wb_list_lock" (IMHO at least 10% comes from the reduction of
cacheline bouncing, because the new code is able to call much less
frequently into balance_dirty_pages() and hence access the global
page states)
* the user space "App overhead" is reduced by 20%, by avoiding the
cacheline pollution by the complex writeback code path
* "for a ~5% throughput reduction", "the number of write IOs have
dropped by ~25%", and the elapsed time reduced from 41:42.17 to
40:53.23.
* On a simple test of 100 dd, it reduces the CPU %system time from 30% to 3%,
and improves IO throughput from 38MB/s to 42MB/s.
- IO size too small for fast arrays and too large for slow USB sticks
The write_chunk used by current balance_dirty_pages() cannot be
directly set to some large value (eg. 128MB) for better IO efficiency.
Because it could lead to more than 1 second user perceivable stalls.
Even the current 4MB write size may be too large for slow USB sticks.
The fact that balance_dirty_pages() starts IO on itself couples the
IO size to wait time, which makes it hard to do suitable IO size while
keeping the wait time under control.
Now it's possible to increase writeback chunk size proportional to the
disk bandwidth. In a simple test of 50 dd's on XFS, 1-HDD, 3GB ram,
the larger writeback size dramatically reduces the seek count to 1/10
(far beyond my expectation) and improves the write throughput by 24%.
- long block time in balance_dirty_pages() hurts desktop responsiveness
Many of us may have the experience: it often takes a couple of seconds
or even long time to stop a heavy writing dd/cp/tar command with
Ctrl-C or "kill -9".
- IO pipeline broken by bumpy write() progress
There are a broad class of "loop {read(buf); write(buf);}" applications
whose read() pipeline will be under-utilized or even come to a stop if
the write()s have long latencies _or_ don't progress in a constant rate.
The current threshold based throttling inherently transfers the large
low level IO completion fluctuations to bumpy application write()s,
and further deteriorates with increasing number of dirtiers and/or bdi's.
For example, when doing 50 dd's + 1 remote rsync to an XFS partition,
the rsync progresses very bumpy in legacy kernel, and throughput is
improved by 67% by this patchset. (plus the larger write chunk size,
it will be 93% speedup).
The new rate based throttling can support 1000+ dd's with excellent
smoothness, low latency and low overheads.
For the above reasons, it's much better to do IO-less and low latency
pauses in balance_dirty_pages().
Jan Kara, Dave Chinner and me explored the scheme to let
balance_dirty_pages() wait for enough writeback IO completions to
safeguard the dirty limit. However it's found to have two problems:
- in large NUMA systems, the per-cpu counters may have big accounting
errors, leading to big throttle wait time and jitters.
- NFS may kill large amount of unstable pages with one single COMMIT.
Because NFS server serves COMMIT with expensive fsync() IOs, it is
desirable to delay and reduce the number of COMMITs. So it's not
likely to optimize away such kind of bursty IO completions, and the
resulted large (and tiny) stall times in IO completion based throttling.
So here is a pause time oriented approach, which tries to control the
pause time in each balance_dirty_pages() invocations, by controlling
the number of pages dirtied before calling balance_dirty_pages(), for
smooth and efficient dirty throttling:
- avoid useless (eg. zero pause time) balance_dirty_pages() calls
- avoid too small pause time (less than 4ms, which burns CPU power)
- avoid too large pause time (more than 200ms, which hurts responsiveness)
- avoid big fluctuations of pause times
It can control pause times at will. The default policy (in a followup
patch) will be to do ~10ms pauses in 1-dd case, and increase to ~100ms
in 1000-dd case.
BEHAVIOR CHANGE
===============
(1) dirty threshold
Users will notice that the applications will get throttled once crossing
the global (background + dirty)/2=15% threshold, and then balanced around
17.5%. Before patch, the behavior is to just throttle it at 20% dirtyable
memory in 1-dd case.
Since the task will be soft throttled earlier than before, it may be
perceived by end users as performance "slow down" if his application
happens to dirty more than 15% dirtyable memory.
(2) smoothness/responsiveness
Users will notice a more responsive system during heavy writeback.
"killall dd" will take effect instantly.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2010-08-27 18:45:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
mm/page-writeback.c: add strictlimit feature
The feature prevents mistrusted filesystems (ie: FUSE mounts created by
unprivileged users) to grow a large number of dirty pages before
throttling. For such filesystems balance_dirty_pages always check bdi
counters against bdi limits. I.e. even if global "nr_dirty" is under
"freerun", it's not allowed to skip bdi checks. The only use case for now
is fuse: it sets bdi max_ratio to 1% by default and system administrators
are supposed to expect that this limit won't be exceeded.
The feature is on if a BDI is marked by BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT flag. A
filesystem may set the flag when it initializes its BDI.
The problematic scenario comes from the fact that nobody pays attention to
the NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP counter (i.e. number of pages under fuse
writeback). The implementation of fuse writeback releases original page
(by calling end_page_writeback) almost immediately. A fuse request queued
for real processing bears a copy of original page. Hence, if userspace
fuse daemon doesn't finalize write requests in timely manner, an
aggressive mmap writer can pollute virtually all memory by those temporary
fuse page copies. They are carefully accounted in NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP, but
nobody cares.
To make further explanations shorter, let me use "NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP
problem" as a shortcut for "a possibility of uncontrolled grow of amount
of RAM consumed by temporary pages allocated by kernel fuse to process
writeback".
The problem was very easy to reproduce. There is a trivial example
filesystem implementation in fuse userspace distribution: fusexmp_fh.c. I
added "sleep(1);" to the write methods, then recompiled and mounted it.
Then created a huge file on the mount point and run a simple program which
mmap-ed the file to a memory region, then wrote a data to the region. An
hour later I observed almost all RAM consumed by fuse writeback. Since
then some unrelated changes in kernel fuse made it more difficult to
reproduce, but it is still possible now.
Putting this theoretical happens-in-the-lab thing aside, there is another
thing that really hurts real world (FUSE) users. This is write-through
page cache policy FUSE currently uses. I.e. handling write(2), kernel
fuse populates page cache and flushes user data to the server
synchronously. This is excessively suboptimal. Pavel Emelyanov's patches
("writeback cache policy") solve the problem, but they also make resolving
NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP problem absolutely necessary. Otherwise, simply copying
a huge file to a fuse mount would result in memory starvation. Miklos,
the maintainer of FUSE, believes strictlimit feature the way to go.
And eventually putting FUSE topics aside, there is one more use-case for
strictlimit feature. Using a slow USB stick (mass storage) in a machine
with huge amount of RAM installed is a well-known pain. Let's make simple
computations. Assuming 64GB of RAM installed, existing implementation of
balance_dirty_pages will start throttling only after 9.6GB of RAM becomes
dirty (freerun == 15% of total RAM). So, the command "cp 9GB_file
/media/my-usb-storage/" may return in a few seconds, but subsequent
"umount /media/my-usb-storage/" will take more than two hours if effective
throughput of the storage is, to say, 1MB/sec.
After inclusion of strictlimit feature, it will be trivial to add a knob
(e.g. /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/x:y/strictlimit) to enable it on demand.
Manually or via udev rule. May be I'm wrong, but it seems to be quite a
natural desire to limit the amount of dirty memory for some devices we are
not fully trust (in the sense of sustainable throughput).
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning in page-writeback.c]
Signed-off-by: Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@parallels.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-09-11 14:22:46 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-29 11:22:30 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:25:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
mm/page-writeback.c: add strictlimit feature
The feature prevents mistrusted filesystems (ie: FUSE mounts created by
unprivileged users) to grow a large number of dirty pages before
throttling. For such filesystems balance_dirty_pages always check bdi
counters against bdi limits. I.e. even if global "nr_dirty" is under
"freerun", it's not allowed to skip bdi checks. The only use case for now
is fuse: it sets bdi max_ratio to 1% by default and system administrators
are supposed to expect that this limit won't be exceeded.
The feature is on if a BDI is marked by BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT flag. A
filesystem may set the flag when it initializes its BDI.
The problematic scenario comes from the fact that nobody pays attention to
the NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP counter (i.e. number of pages under fuse
writeback). The implementation of fuse writeback releases original page
(by calling end_page_writeback) almost immediately. A fuse request queued
for real processing bears a copy of original page. Hence, if userspace
fuse daemon doesn't finalize write requests in timely manner, an
aggressive mmap writer can pollute virtually all memory by those temporary
fuse page copies. They are carefully accounted in NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP, but
nobody cares.
To make further explanations shorter, let me use "NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP
problem" as a shortcut for "a possibility of uncontrolled grow of amount
of RAM consumed by temporary pages allocated by kernel fuse to process
writeback".
The problem was very easy to reproduce. There is a trivial example
filesystem implementation in fuse userspace distribution: fusexmp_fh.c. I
added "sleep(1);" to the write methods, then recompiled and mounted it.
Then created a huge file on the mount point and run a simple program which
mmap-ed the file to a memory region, then wrote a data to the region. An
hour later I observed almost all RAM consumed by fuse writeback. Since
then some unrelated changes in kernel fuse made it more difficult to
reproduce, but it is still possible now.
Putting this theoretical happens-in-the-lab thing aside, there is another
thing that really hurts real world (FUSE) users. This is write-through
page cache policy FUSE currently uses. I.e. handling write(2), kernel
fuse populates page cache and flushes user data to the server
synchronously. This is excessively suboptimal. Pavel Emelyanov's patches
("writeback cache policy") solve the problem, but they also make resolving
NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP problem absolutely necessary. Otherwise, simply copying
a huge file to a fuse mount would result in memory starvation. Miklos,
the maintainer of FUSE, believes strictlimit feature the way to go.
And eventually putting FUSE topics aside, there is one more use-case for
strictlimit feature. Using a slow USB stick (mass storage) in a machine
with huge amount of RAM installed is a well-known pain. Let's make simple
computations. Assuming 64GB of RAM installed, existing implementation of
balance_dirty_pages will start throttling only after 9.6GB of RAM becomes
dirty (freerun == 15% of total RAM). So, the command "cp 9GB_file
/media/my-usb-storage/" may return in a few seconds, but subsequent
"umount /media/my-usb-storage/" will take more than two hours if effective
throughput of the storage is, to say, 1MB/sec.
After inclusion of strictlimit feature, it will be trivial to add a knob
(e.g. /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/x:y/strictlimit) to enable it on demand.
Manually or via udev rule. May be I'm wrong, but it seems to be quite a
natural desire to limit the amount of dirty memory for some devices we are
not fully trust (in the sense of sustainable throughput).
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning in page-writeback.c]
Signed-off-by: Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@parallels.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-09-11 14:22:46 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:25:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
As proposed by Chris, Dave and Jan, don't start foreground writeback IO
inside balance_dirty_pages(). Instead, simply let it idle sleep for some
time to throttle the dirtying task. In the mean while, kick off the
per-bdi flusher thread to do background writeback IO.
RATIONALS
=========
- disk seeks on concurrent writeback of multiple inodes (Dave Chinner)
If every thread doing writes and being throttled start foreground
writeback, it leads to N IO submitters from at least N different
inodes at the same time, end up with N different sets of IO being
issued with potentially zero locality to each other, resulting in
much lower elevator sort/merge efficiency and hence we seek the disk
all over the place to service the different sets of IO.
OTOH, if there is only one submission thread, it doesn't jump between
inodes in the same way when congestion clears - it keeps writing to
the same inode, resulting in large related chunks of sequential IOs
being issued to the disk. This is more efficient than the above
foreground writeback because the elevator works better and the disk
seeks less.
- lock contention and cache bouncing on concurrent IO submitters (Dave Chinner)
With this patchset, the fs_mark benchmark on a 12-drive software RAID0 goes
from CPU bound to IO bound, freeing "3-4 CPUs worth of spinlock contention".
* "CPU usage has dropped by ~55%", "it certainly appears that most of
the CPU time saving comes from the removal of contention on the
inode_wb_list_lock" (IMHO at least 10% comes from the reduction of
cacheline bouncing, because the new code is able to call much less
frequently into balance_dirty_pages() and hence access the global
page states)
* the user space "App overhead" is reduced by 20%, by avoiding the
cacheline pollution by the complex writeback code path
* "for a ~5% throughput reduction", "the number of write IOs have
dropped by ~25%", and the elapsed time reduced from 41:42.17 to
40:53.23.
* On a simple test of 100 dd, it reduces the CPU %system time from 30% to 3%,
and improves IO throughput from 38MB/s to 42MB/s.
- IO size too small for fast arrays and too large for slow USB sticks
The write_chunk used by current balance_dirty_pages() cannot be
directly set to some large value (eg. 128MB) for better IO efficiency.
Because it could lead to more than 1 second user perceivable stalls.
Even the current 4MB write size may be too large for slow USB sticks.
The fact that balance_dirty_pages() starts IO on itself couples the
IO size to wait time, which makes it hard to do suitable IO size while
keeping the wait time under control.
Now it's possible to increase writeback chunk size proportional to the
disk bandwidth. In a simple test of 50 dd's on XFS, 1-HDD, 3GB ram,
the larger writeback size dramatically reduces the seek count to 1/10
(far beyond my expectation) and improves the write throughput by 24%.
- long block time in balance_dirty_pages() hurts desktop responsiveness
Many of us may have the experience: it often takes a couple of seconds
or even long time to stop a heavy writing dd/cp/tar command with
Ctrl-C or "kill -9".
- IO pipeline broken by bumpy write() progress
There are a broad class of "loop {read(buf); write(buf);}" applications
whose read() pipeline will be under-utilized or even come to a stop if
the write()s have long latencies _or_ don't progress in a constant rate.
The current threshold based throttling inherently transfers the large
low level IO completion fluctuations to bumpy application write()s,
and further deteriorates with increasing number of dirtiers and/or bdi's.
For example, when doing 50 dd's + 1 remote rsync to an XFS partition,
the rsync progresses very bumpy in legacy kernel, and throughput is
improved by 67% by this patchset. (plus the larger write chunk size,
it will be 93% speedup).
The new rate based throttling can support 1000+ dd's with excellent
smoothness, low latency and low overheads.
For the above reasons, it's much better to do IO-less and low latency
pauses in balance_dirty_pages().
Jan Kara, Dave Chinner and me explored the scheme to let
balance_dirty_pages() wait for enough writeback IO completions to
safeguard the dirty limit. However it's found to have two problems:
- in large NUMA systems, the per-cpu counters may have big accounting
errors, leading to big throttle wait time and jitters.
- NFS may kill large amount of unstable pages with one single COMMIT.
Because NFS server serves COMMIT with expensive fsync() IOs, it is
desirable to delay and reduce the number of COMMITs. So it's not
likely to optimize away such kind of bursty IO completions, and the
resulted large (and tiny) stall times in IO completion based throttling.
So here is a pause time oriented approach, which tries to control the
pause time in each balance_dirty_pages() invocations, by controlling
the number of pages dirtied before calling balance_dirty_pages(), for
smooth and efficient dirty throttling:
- avoid useless (eg. zero pause time) balance_dirty_pages() calls
- avoid too small pause time (less than 4ms, which burns CPU power)
- avoid too large pause time (more than 200ms, which hurts responsiveness)
- avoid big fluctuations of pause times
It can control pause times at will. The default policy (in a followup
patch) will be to do ~10ms pauses in 1-dd case, and increase to ~100ms
in 1000-dd case.
BEHAVIOR CHANGE
===============
(1) dirty threshold
Users will notice that the applications will get throttled once crossing
the global (background + dirty)/2=15% threshold, and then balanced around
17.5%. Before patch, the behavior is to just throttle it at 20% dirtyable
memory in 1-dd case.
Since the task will be soft throttled earlier than before, it may be
perceived by end users as performance "slow down" if his application
happens to dirty more than 15% dirtyable memory.
(2) smoothness/responsiveness
Users will notice a more responsive system during heavy writeback.
"killall dd" will take effect instantly.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2010-08-27 18:45:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-11-14 16:59:15 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-09-12 13:34:05 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2007-11-14 16:59:15 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-11 14:17:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mm/page-writeback.c: add strictlimit feature
The feature prevents mistrusted filesystems (ie: FUSE mounts created by
unprivileged users) to grow a large number of dirty pages before
throttling. For such filesystems balance_dirty_pages always check bdi
counters against bdi limits. I.e. even if global "nr_dirty" is under
"freerun", it's not allowed to skip bdi checks. The only use case for now
is fuse: it sets bdi max_ratio to 1% by default and system administrators
are supposed to expect that this limit won't be exceeded.
The feature is on if a BDI is marked by BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT flag. A
filesystem may set the flag when it initializes its BDI.
The problematic scenario comes from the fact that nobody pays attention to
the NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP counter (i.e. number of pages under fuse
writeback). The implementation of fuse writeback releases original page
(by calling end_page_writeback) almost immediately. A fuse request queued
for real processing bears a copy of original page. Hence, if userspace
fuse daemon doesn't finalize write requests in timely manner, an
aggressive mmap writer can pollute virtually all memory by those temporary
fuse page copies. They are carefully accounted in NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP, but
nobody cares.
To make further explanations shorter, let me use "NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP
problem" as a shortcut for "a possibility of uncontrolled grow of amount
of RAM consumed by temporary pages allocated by kernel fuse to process
writeback".
The problem was very easy to reproduce. There is a trivial example
filesystem implementation in fuse userspace distribution: fusexmp_fh.c. I
added "sleep(1);" to the write methods, then recompiled and mounted it.
Then created a huge file on the mount point and run a simple program which
mmap-ed the file to a memory region, then wrote a data to the region. An
hour later I observed almost all RAM consumed by fuse writeback. Since
then some unrelated changes in kernel fuse made it more difficult to
reproduce, but it is still possible now.
Putting this theoretical happens-in-the-lab thing aside, there is another
thing that really hurts real world (FUSE) users. This is write-through
page cache policy FUSE currently uses. I.e. handling write(2), kernel
fuse populates page cache and flushes user data to the server
synchronously. This is excessively suboptimal. Pavel Emelyanov's patches
("writeback cache policy") solve the problem, but they also make resolving
NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP problem absolutely necessary. Otherwise, simply copying
a huge file to a fuse mount would result in memory starvation. Miklos,
the maintainer of FUSE, believes strictlimit feature the way to go.
And eventually putting FUSE topics aside, there is one more use-case for
strictlimit feature. Using a slow USB stick (mass storage) in a machine
with huge amount of RAM installed is a well-known pain. Let's make simple
computations. Assuming 64GB of RAM installed, existing implementation of
balance_dirty_pages will start throttling only after 9.6GB of RAM becomes
dirty (freerun == 15% of total RAM). So, the command "cp 9GB_file
/media/my-usb-storage/" may return in a few seconds, but subsequent
"umount /media/my-usb-storage/" will take more than two hours if effective
throughput of the storage is, to say, 1MB/sec.
After inclusion of strictlimit feature, it will be trivial to add a knob
(e.g. /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/x:y/strictlimit) to enable it on demand.
Manually or via udev rule. May be I'm wrong, but it seems to be quite a
natural desire to limit the amount of dirty memory for some devices we are
not fully trust (in the sense of sustainable throughput).
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning in page-writeback.c]
Signed-off-by: Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@parallels.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-09-11 14:22:46 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-11 14:17:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mm/page-writeback.c: add strictlimit feature
The feature prevents mistrusted filesystems (ie: FUSE mounts created by
unprivileged users) to grow a large number of dirty pages before
throttling. For such filesystems balance_dirty_pages always check bdi
counters against bdi limits. I.e. even if global "nr_dirty" is under
"freerun", it's not allowed to skip bdi checks. The only use case for now
is fuse: it sets bdi max_ratio to 1% by default and system administrators
are supposed to expect that this limit won't be exceeded.
The feature is on if a BDI is marked by BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT flag. A
filesystem may set the flag when it initializes its BDI.
The problematic scenario comes from the fact that nobody pays attention to
the NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP counter (i.e. number of pages under fuse
writeback). The implementation of fuse writeback releases original page
(by calling end_page_writeback) almost immediately. A fuse request queued
for real processing bears a copy of original page. Hence, if userspace
fuse daemon doesn't finalize write requests in timely manner, an
aggressive mmap writer can pollute virtually all memory by those temporary
fuse page copies. They are carefully accounted in NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP, but
nobody cares.
To make further explanations shorter, let me use "NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP
problem" as a shortcut for "a possibility of uncontrolled grow of amount
of RAM consumed by temporary pages allocated by kernel fuse to process
writeback".
The problem was very easy to reproduce. There is a trivial example
filesystem implementation in fuse userspace distribution: fusexmp_fh.c. I
added "sleep(1);" to the write methods, then recompiled and mounted it.
Then created a huge file on the mount point and run a simple program which
mmap-ed the file to a memory region, then wrote a data to the region. An
hour later I observed almost all RAM consumed by fuse writeback. Since
then some unrelated changes in kernel fuse made it more difficult to
reproduce, but it is still possible now.
Putting this theoretical happens-in-the-lab thing aside, there is another
thing that really hurts real world (FUSE) users. This is write-through
page cache policy FUSE currently uses. I.e. handling write(2), kernel
fuse populates page cache and flushes user data to the server
synchronously. This is excessively suboptimal. Pavel Emelyanov's patches
("writeback cache policy") solve the problem, but they also make resolving
NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP problem absolutely necessary. Otherwise, simply copying
a huge file to a fuse mount would result in memory starvation. Miklos,
the maintainer of FUSE, believes strictlimit feature the way to go.
And eventually putting FUSE topics aside, there is one more use-case for
strictlimit feature. Using a slow USB stick (mass storage) in a machine
with huge amount of RAM installed is a well-known pain. Let's make simple
computations. Assuming 64GB of RAM installed, existing implementation of
balance_dirty_pages will start throttling only after 9.6GB of RAM becomes
dirty (freerun == 15% of total RAM). So, the command "cp 9GB_file
/media/my-usb-storage/" may return in a few seconds, but subsequent
"umount /media/my-usb-storage/" will take more than two hours if effective
throughput of the storage is, to say, 1MB/sec.
After inclusion of strictlimit feature, it will be trivial to add a knob
(e.g. /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/x:y/strictlimit) to enable it on demand.
Manually or via udev rule. May be I'm wrong, but it seems to be quite a
natural desire to limit the amount of dirty memory for some devices we are
not fully trust (in the sense of sustainable throughput).
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning in page-writeback.c]
Signed-off-by: Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@parallels.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-09-11 14:22:46 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-11 14:17:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
mm/page-writeback.c: add strictlimit feature
The feature prevents mistrusted filesystems (ie: FUSE mounts created by
unprivileged users) to grow a large number of dirty pages before
throttling. For such filesystems balance_dirty_pages always check bdi
counters against bdi limits. I.e. even if global "nr_dirty" is under
"freerun", it's not allowed to skip bdi checks. The only use case for now
is fuse: it sets bdi max_ratio to 1% by default and system administrators
are supposed to expect that this limit won't be exceeded.
The feature is on if a BDI is marked by BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT flag. A
filesystem may set the flag when it initializes its BDI.
The problematic scenario comes from the fact that nobody pays attention to
the NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP counter (i.e. number of pages under fuse
writeback). The implementation of fuse writeback releases original page
(by calling end_page_writeback) almost immediately. A fuse request queued
for real processing bears a copy of original page. Hence, if userspace
fuse daemon doesn't finalize write requests in timely manner, an
aggressive mmap writer can pollute virtually all memory by those temporary
fuse page copies. They are carefully accounted in NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP, but
nobody cares.
To make further explanations shorter, let me use "NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP
problem" as a shortcut for "a possibility of uncontrolled grow of amount
of RAM consumed by temporary pages allocated by kernel fuse to process
writeback".
The problem was very easy to reproduce. There is a trivial example
filesystem implementation in fuse userspace distribution: fusexmp_fh.c. I
added "sleep(1);" to the write methods, then recompiled and mounted it.
Then created a huge file on the mount point and run a simple program which
mmap-ed the file to a memory region, then wrote a data to the region. An
hour later I observed almost all RAM consumed by fuse writeback. Since
then some unrelated changes in kernel fuse made it more difficult to
reproduce, but it is still possible now.
Putting this theoretical happens-in-the-lab thing aside, there is another
thing that really hurts real world (FUSE) users. This is write-through
page cache policy FUSE currently uses. I.e. handling write(2), kernel
fuse populates page cache and flushes user data to the server
synchronously. This is excessively suboptimal. Pavel Emelyanov's patches
("writeback cache policy") solve the problem, but they also make resolving
NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP problem absolutely necessary. Otherwise, simply copying
a huge file to a fuse mount would result in memory starvation. Miklos,
the maintainer of FUSE, believes strictlimit feature the way to go.
And eventually putting FUSE topics aside, there is one more use-case for
strictlimit feature. Using a slow USB stick (mass storage) in a machine
with huge amount of RAM installed is a well-known pain. Let's make simple
computations. Assuming 64GB of RAM installed, existing implementation of
balance_dirty_pages will start throttling only after 9.6GB of RAM becomes
dirty (freerun == 15% of total RAM). So, the command "cp 9GB_file
/media/my-usb-storage/" may return in a few seconds, but subsequent
"umount /media/my-usb-storage/" will take more than two hours if effective
throughput of the storage is, to say, 1MB/sec.
After inclusion of strictlimit feature, it will be trivial to add a knob
(e.g. /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/x:y/strictlimit) to enable it on demand.
Manually or via udev rule. May be I'm wrong, but it seems to be quite a
natural desire to limit the amount of dirty memory for some devices we are
not fully trust (in the sense of sustainable throughput).
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning in page-writeback.c]
Signed-off-by: Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@parallels.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-09-11 14:22:46 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:25:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
mm/page-writeback.c: add strictlimit feature
The feature prevents mistrusted filesystems (ie: FUSE mounts created by
unprivileged users) to grow a large number of dirty pages before
throttling. For such filesystems balance_dirty_pages always check bdi
counters against bdi limits. I.e. even if global "nr_dirty" is under
"freerun", it's not allowed to skip bdi checks. The only use case for now
is fuse: it sets bdi max_ratio to 1% by default and system administrators
are supposed to expect that this limit won't be exceeded.
The feature is on if a BDI is marked by BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT flag. A
filesystem may set the flag when it initializes its BDI.
The problematic scenario comes from the fact that nobody pays attention to
the NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP counter (i.e. number of pages under fuse
writeback). The implementation of fuse writeback releases original page
(by calling end_page_writeback) almost immediately. A fuse request queued
for real processing bears a copy of original page. Hence, if userspace
fuse daemon doesn't finalize write requests in timely manner, an
aggressive mmap writer can pollute virtually all memory by those temporary
fuse page copies. They are carefully accounted in NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP, but
nobody cares.
To make further explanations shorter, let me use "NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP
problem" as a shortcut for "a possibility of uncontrolled grow of amount
of RAM consumed by temporary pages allocated by kernel fuse to process
writeback".
The problem was very easy to reproduce. There is a trivial example
filesystem implementation in fuse userspace distribution: fusexmp_fh.c. I
added "sleep(1);" to the write methods, then recompiled and mounted it.
Then created a huge file on the mount point and run a simple program which
mmap-ed the file to a memory region, then wrote a data to the region. An
hour later I observed almost all RAM consumed by fuse writeback. Since
then some unrelated changes in kernel fuse made it more difficult to
reproduce, but it is still possible now.
Putting this theoretical happens-in-the-lab thing aside, there is another
thing that really hurts real world (FUSE) users. This is write-through
page cache policy FUSE currently uses. I.e. handling write(2), kernel
fuse populates page cache and flushes user data to the server
synchronously. This is excessively suboptimal. Pavel Emelyanov's patches
("writeback cache policy") solve the problem, but they also make resolving
NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP problem absolutely necessary. Otherwise, simply copying
a huge file to a fuse mount would result in memory starvation. Miklos,
the maintainer of FUSE, believes strictlimit feature the way to go.
And eventually putting FUSE topics aside, there is one more use-case for
strictlimit feature. Using a slow USB stick (mass storage) in a machine
with huge amount of RAM installed is a well-known pain. Let's make simple
computations. Assuming 64GB of RAM installed, existing implementation of
balance_dirty_pages will start throttling only after 9.6GB of RAM becomes
dirty (freerun == 15% of total RAM). So, the command "cp 9GB_file
/media/my-usb-storage/" may return in a few seconds, but subsequent
"umount /media/my-usb-storage/" will take more than two hours if effective
throughput of the storage is, to say, 1MB/sec.
After inclusion of strictlimit feature, it will be trivial to add a knob
(e.g. /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/x:y/strictlimit) to enable it on demand.
Manually or via udev rule. May be I'm wrong, but it seems to be quite a
natural desire to limit the amount of dirty memory for some devices we are
not fully trust (in the sense of sustainable throughput).
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning in page-writeback.c]
Signed-off-by: Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@parallels.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-09-11 14:22:46 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-11 14:17:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:25:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-11 14:17:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
As proposed by Chris, Dave and Jan, don't start foreground writeback IO
inside balance_dirty_pages(). Instead, simply let it idle sleep for some
time to throttle the dirtying task. In the mean while, kick off the
per-bdi flusher thread to do background writeback IO.
RATIONALS
=========
- disk seeks on concurrent writeback of multiple inodes (Dave Chinner)
If every thread doing writes and being throttled start foreground
writeback, it leads to N IO submitters from at least N different
inodes at the same time, end up with N different sets of IO being
issued with potentially zero locality to each other, resulting in
much lower elevator sort/merge efficiency and hence we seek the disk
all over the place to service the different sets of IO.
OTOH, if there is only one submission thread, it doesn't jump between
inodes in the same way when congestion clears - it keeps writing to
the same inode, resulting in large related chunks of sequential IOs
being issued to the disk. This is more efficient than the above
foreground writeback because the elevator works better and the disk
seeks less.
- lock contention and cache bouncing on concurrent IO submitters (Dave Chinner)
With this patchset, the fs_mark benchmark on a 12-drive software RAID0 goes
from CPU bound to IO bound, freeing "3-4 CPUs worth of spinlock contention".
* "CPU usage has dropped by ~55%", "it certainly appears that most of
the CPU time saving comes from the removal of contention on the
inode_wb_list_lock" (IMHO at least 10% comes from the reduction of
cacheline bouncing, because the new code is able to call much less
frequently into balance_dirty_pages() and hence access the global
page states)
* the user space "App overhead" is reduced by 20%, by avoiding the
cacheline pollution by the complex writeback code path
* "for a ~5% throughput reduction", "the number of write IOs have
dropped by ~25%", and the elapsed time reduced from 41:42.17 to
40:53.23.
* On a simple test of 100 dd, it reduces the CPU %system time from 30% to 3%,
and improves IO throughput from 38MB/s to 42MB/s.
- IO size too small for fast arrays and too large for slow USB sticks
The write_chunk used by current balance_dirty_pages() cannot be
directly set to some large value (eg. 128MB) for better IO efficiency.
Because it could lead to more than 1 second user perceivable stalls.
Even the current 4MB write size may be too large for slow USB sticks.
The fact that balance_dirty_pages() starts IO on itself couples the
IO size to wait time, which makes it hard to do suitable IO size while
keeping the wait time under control.
Now it's possible to increase writeback chunk size proportional to the
disk bandwidth. In a simple test of 50 dd's on XFS, 1-HDD, 3GB ram,
the larger writeback size dramatically reduces the seek count to 1/10
(far beyond my expectation) and improves the write throughput by 24%.
- long block time in balance_dirty_pages() hurts desktop responsiveness
Many of us may have the experience: it often takes a couple of seconds
or even long time to stop a heavy writing dd/cp/tar command with
Ctrl-C or "kill -9".
- IO pipeline broken by bumpy write() progress
There are a broad class of "loop {read(buf); write(buf);}" applications
whose read() pipeline will be under-utilized or even come to a stop if
the write()s have long latencies _or_ don't progress in a constant rate.
The current threshold based throttling inherently transfers the large
low level IO completion fluctuations to bumpy application write()s,
and further deteriorates with increasing number of dirtiers and/or bdi's.
For example, when doing 50 dd's + 1 remote rsync to an XFS partition,
the rsync progresses very bumpy in legacy kernel, and throughput is
improved by 67% by this patchset. (plus the larger write chunk size,
it will be 93% speedup).
The new rate based throttling can support 1000+ dd's with excellent
smoothness, low latency and low overheads.
For the above reasons, it's much better to do IO-less and low latency
pauses in balance_dirty_pages().
Jan Kara, Dave Chinner and me explored the scheme to let
balance_dirty_pages() wait for enough writeback IO completions to
safeguard the dirty limit. However it's found to have two problems:
- in large NUMA systems, the per-cpu counters may have big accounting
errors, leading to big throttle wait time and jitters.
- NFS may kill large amount of unstable pages with one single COMMIT.
Because NFS server serves COMMIT with expensive fsync() IOs, it is
desirable to delay and reduce the number of COMMITs. So it's not
likely to optimize away such kind of bursty IO completions, and the
resulted large (and tiny) stall times in IO completion based throttling.
So here is a pause time oriented approach, which tries to control the
pause time in each balance_dirty_pages() invocations, by controlling
the number of pages dirtied before calling balance_dirty_pages(), for
smooth and efficient dirty throttling:
- avoid useless (eg. zero pause time) balance_dirty_pages() calls
- avoid too small pause time (less than 4ms, which burns CPU power)
- avoid too large pause time (more than 200ms, which hurts responsiveness)
- avoid big fluctuations of pause times
It can control pause times at will. The default policy (in a followup
patch) will be to do ~10ms pauses in 1-dd case, and increase to ~100ms
in 1000-dd case.
BEHAVIOR CHANGE
===============
(1) dirty threshold
Users will notice that the applications will get throttled once crossing
the global (background + dirty)/2=15% threshold, and then balanced around
17.5%. Before patch, the behavior is to just throttle it at 20% dirtyable
memory in 1-dd case.
Since the task will be soft throttled earlier than before, it may be
perceived by end users as performance "slow down" if his application
happens to dirty more than 15% dirtyable memory.
(2) smoothness/responsiveness
Users will notice a more responsive system during heavy writeback.
"killall dd" will take effect instantly.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2010-08-27 18:45:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mm/page-writeback.c: add strictlimit feature
The feature prevents mistrusted filesystems (ie: FUSE mounts created by
unprivileged users) to grow a large number of dirty pages before
throttling. For such filesystems balance_dirty_pages always check bdi
counters against bdi limits. I.e. even if global "nr_dirty" is under
"freerun", it's not allowed to skip bdi checks. The only use case for now
is fuse: it sets bdi max_ratio to 1% by default and system administrators
are supposed to expect that this limit won't be exceeded.
The feature is on if a BDI is marked by BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT flag. A
filesystem may set the flag when it initializes its BDI.
The problematic scenario comes from the fact that nobody pays attention to
the NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP counter (i.e. number of pages under fuse
writeback). The implementation of fuse writeback releases original page
(by calling end_page_writeback) almost immediately. A fuse request queued
for real processing bears a copy of original page. Hence, if userspace
fuse daemon doesn't finalize write requests in timely manner, an
aggressive mmap writer can pollute virtually all memory by those temporary
fuse page copies. They are carefully accounted in NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP, but
nobody cares.
To make further explanations shorter, let me use "NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP
problem" as a shortcut for "a possibility of uncontrolled grow of amount
of RAM consumed by temporary pages allocated by kernel fuse to process
writeback".
The problem was very easy to reproduce. There is a trivial example
filesystem implementation in fuse userspace distribution: fusexmp_fh.c. I
added "sleep(1);" to the write methods, then recompiled and mounted it.
Then created a huge file on the mount point and run a simple program which
mmap-ed the file to a memory region, then wrote a data to the region. An
hour later I observed almost all RAM consumed by fuse writeback. Since
then some unrelated changes in kernel fuse made it more difficult to
reproduce, but it is still possible now.
Putting this theoretical happens-in-the-lab thing aside, there is another
thing that really hurts real world (FUSE) users. This is write-through
page cache policy FUSE currently uses. I.e. handling write(2), kernel
fuse populates page cache and flushes user data to the server
synchronously. This is excessively suboptimal. Pavel Emelyanov's patches
("writeback cache policy") solve the problem, but they also make resolving
NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP problem absolutely necessary. Otherwise, simply copying
a huge file to a fuse mount would result in memory starvation. Miklos,
the maintainer of FUSE, believes strictlimit feature the way to go.
And eventually putting FUSE topics aside, there is one more use-case for
strictlimit feature. Using a slow USB stick (mass storage) in a machine
with huge amount of RAM installed is a well-known pain. Let's make simple
computations. Assuming 64GB of RAM installed, existing implementation of
balance_dirty_pages will start throttling only after 9.6GB of RAM becomes
dirty (freerun == 15% of total RAM). So, the command "cp 9GB_file
/media/my-usb-storage/" may return in a few seconds, but subsequent
"umount /media/my-usb-storage/" will take more than two hours if effective
throughput of the storage is, to say, 1MB/sec.
After inclusion of strictlimit feature, it will be trivial to add a knob
(e.g. /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/x:y/strictlimit) to enable it on demand.
Manually or via udev rule. May be I'm wrong, but it seems to be quite a
natural desire to limit the amount of dirty memory for some devices we are
not fully trust (in the sense of sustainable throughput).
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning in page-writeback.c]
Signed-off-by: Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@parallels.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-09-11 14:22:46 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-11-14 16:59:15 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2011-12-03 21:26:01 -06:00
|
|
|
|
mm/page-writeback.c: add strictlimit feature
The feature prevents mistrusted filesystems (ie: FUSE mounts created by
unprivileged users) to grow a large number of dirty pages before
throttling. For such filesystems balance_dirty_pages always check bdi
counters against bdi limits. I.e. even if global "nr_dirty" is under
"freerun", it's not allowed to skip bdi checks. The only use case for now
is fuse: it sets bdi max_ratio to 1% by default and system administrators
are supposed to expect that this limit won't be exceeded.
The feature is on if a BDI is marked by BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT flag. A
filesystem may set the flag when it initializes its BDI.
The problematic scenario comes from the fact that nobody pays attention to
the NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP counter (i.e. number of pages under fuse
writeback). The implementation of fuse writeback releases original page
(by calling end_page_writeback) almost immediately. A fuse request queued
for real processing bears a copy of original page. Hence, if userspace
fuse daemon doesn't finalize write requests in timely manner, an
aggressive mmap writer can pollute virtually all memory by those temporary
fuse page copies. They are carefully accounted in NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP, but
nobody cares.
To make further explanations shorter, let me use "NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP
problem" as a shortcut for "a possibility of uncontrolled grow of amount
of RAM consumed by temporary pages allocated by kernel fuse to process
writeback".
The problem was very easy to reproduce. There is a trivial example
filesystem implementation in fuse userspace distribution: fusexmp_fh.c. I
added "sleep(1);" to the write methods, then recompiled and mounted it.
Then created a huge file on the mount point and run a simple program which
mmap-ed the file to a memory region, then wrote a data to the region. An
hour later I observed almost all RAM consumed by fuse writeback. Since
then some unrelated changes in kernel fuse made it more difficult to
reproduce, but it is still possible now.
Putting this theoretical happens-in-the-lab thing aside, there is another
thing that really hurts real world (FUSE) users. This is write-through
page cache policy FUSE currently uses. I.e. handling write(2), kernel
fuse populates page cache and flushes user data to the server
synchronously. This is excessively suboptimal. Pavel Emelyanov's patches
("writeback cache policy") solve the problem, but they also make resolving
NR_WRITEBACK_TEMP problem absolutely necessary. Otherwise, simply copying
a huge file to a fuse mount would result in memory starvation. Miklos,
the maintainer of FUSE, believes strictlimit feature the way to go.
And eventually putting FUSE topics aside, there is one more use-case for
strictlimit feature. Using a slow USB stick (mass storage) in a machine
with huge amount of RAM installed is a well-known pain. Let's make simple
computations. Assuming 64GB of RAM installed, existing implementation of
balance_dirty_pages will start throttling only after 9.6GB of RAM becomes
dirty (freerun == 15% of total RAM). So, the command "cp 9GB_file
/media/my-usb-storage/" may return in a few seconds, but subsequent
"umount /media/my-usb-storage/" will take more than two hours if effective
throughput of the storage is, to say, 1MB/sec.
After inclusion of strictlimit feature, it will be trivial to add a knob
(e.g. /sys/devices/virtual/bdi/x:y/strictlimit) to enable it on demand.
Manually or via udev rule. May be I'm wrong, but it seems to be quite a
natural desire to limit the amount of dirty memory for some devices we are
not fully trust (in the sense of sustainable throughput).
[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix warning in page-writeback.c]
Signed-off-by: Maxim Patlasov <MPatlasov@parallels.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@parallels.com>
Cc: James Bottomley <James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-09-11 14:22:46 -07:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
As proposed by Chris, Dave and Jan, don't start foreground writeback IO
inside balance_dirty_pages(). Instead, simply let it idle sleep for some
time to throttle the dirtying task. In the mean while, kick off the
per-bdi flusher thread to do background writeback IO.
RATIONALS
=========
- disk seeks on concurrent writeback of multiple inodes (Dave Chinner)
If every thread doing writes and being throttled start foreground
writeback, it leads to N IO submitters from at least N different
inodes at the same time, end up with N different sets of IO being
issued with potentially zero locality to each other, resulting in
much lower elevator sort/merge efficiency and hence we seek the disk
all over the place to service the different sets of IO.
OTOH, if there is only one submission thread, it doesn't jump between
inodes in the same way when congestion clears - it keeps writing to
the same inode, resulting in large related chunks of sequential IOs
being issued to the disk. This is more efficient than the above
foreground writeback because the elevator works better and the disk
seeks less.
- lock contention and cache bouncing on concurrent IO submitters (Dave Chinner)
With this patchset, the fs_mark benchmark on a 12-drive software RAID0 goes
from CPU bound to IO bound, freeing "3-4 CPUs worth of spinlock contention".
* "CPU usage has dropped by ~55%", "it certainly appears that most of
the CPU time saving comes from the removal of contention on the
inode_wb_list_lock" (IMHO at least 10% comes from the reduction of
cacheline bouncing, because the new code is able to call much less
frequently into balance_dirty_pages() and hence access the global
page states)
* the user space "App overhead" is reduced by 20%, by avoiding the
cacheline pollution by the complex writeback code path
* "for a ~5% throughput reduction", "the number of write IOs have
dropped by ~25%", and the elapsed time reduced from 41:42.17 to
40:53.23.
* On a simple test of 100 dd, it reduces the CPU %system time from 30% to 3%,
and improves IO throughput from 38MB/s to 42MB/s.
- IO size too small for fast arrays and too large for slow USB sticks
The write_chunk used by current balance_dirty_pages() cannot be
directly set to some large value (eg. 128MB) for better IO efficiency.
Because it could lead to more than 1 second user perceivable stalls.
Even the current 4MB write size may be too large for slow USB sticks.
The fact that balance_dirty_pages() starts IO on itself couples the
IO size to wait time, which makes it hard to do suitable IO size while
keeping the wait time under control.
Now it's possible to increase writeback chunk size proportional to the
disk bandwidth. In a simple test of 50 dd's on XFS, 1-HDD, 3GB ram,
the larger writeback size dramatically reduces the seek count to 1/10
(far beyond my expectation) and improves the write throughput by 24%.
- long block time in balance_dirty_pages() hurts desktop responsiveness
Many of us may have the experience: it often takes a couple of seconds
or even long time to stop a heavy writing dd/cp/tar command with
Ctrl-C or "kill -9".
- IO pipeline broken by bumpy write() progress
There are a broad class of "loop {read(buf); write(buf);}" applications
whose read() pipeline will be under-utilized or even come to a stop if
the write()s have long latencies _or_ don't progress in a constant rate.
The current threshold based throttling inherently transfers the large
low level IO completion fluctuations to bumpy application write()s,
and further deteriorates with increasing number of dirtiers and/or bdi's.
For example, when doing 50 dd's + 1 remote rsync to an XFS partition,
the rsync progresses very bumpy in legacy kernel, and throughput is
improved by 67% by this patchset. (plus the larger write chunk size,
it will be 93% speedup).
The new rate based throttling can support 1000+ dd's with excellent
smoothness, low latency and low overheads.
For the above reasons, it's much better to do IO-less and low latency
pauses in balance_dirty_pages().
Jan Kara, Dave Chinner and me explored the scheme to let
balance_dirty_pages() wait for enough writeback IO completions to
safeguard the dirty limit. However it's found to have two problems:
- in large NUMA systems, the per-cpu counters may have big accounting
errors, leading to big throttle wait time and jitters.
- NFS may kill large amount of unstable pages with one single COMMIT.
Because NFS server serves COMMIT with expensive fsync() IOs, it is
desirable to delay and reduce the number of COMMITs. So it's not
likely to optimize away such kind of bursty IO completions, and the
resulted large (and tiny) stall times in IO completion based throttling.
So here is a pause time oriented approach, which tries to control the
pause time in each balance_dirty_pages() invocations, by controlling
the number of pages dirtied before calling balance_dirty_pages(), for
smooth and efficient dirty throttling:
- avoid useless (eg. zero pause time) balance_dirty_pages() calls
- avoid too small pause time (less than 4ms, which burns CPU power)
- avoid too large pause time (more than 200ms, which hurts responsiveness)
- avoid big fluctuations of pause times
It can control pause times at will. The default policy (in a followup
patch) will be to do ~10ms pauses in 1-dd case, and increase to ~100ms
in 1000-dd case.
BEHAVIOR CHANGE
===============
(1) dirty threshold
Users will notice that the applications will get throttled once crossing
the global (background + dirty)/2=15% threshold, and then balanced around
17.5%. Before patch, the behavior is to just throttle it at 20% dirtyable
memory in 1-dd case.
Since the task will be soft throttled earlier than before, it may be
perceived by end users as performance "slow down" if his application
happens to dirty more than 15% dirtyable memory.
(2) smoothness/responsiveness
Users will notice a more responsive system during heavy writeback.
"killall dd" will take effect instantly.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2010-08-27 18:45:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-10-03 20:46:17 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-29 11:22:30 -06:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
As proposed by Chris, Dave and Jan, don't start foreground writeback IO
inside balance_dirty_pages(). Instead, simply let it idle sleep for some
time to throttle the dirtying task. In the mean while, kick off the
per-bdi flusher thread to do background writeback IO.
RATIONALS
=========
- disk seeks on concurrent writeback of multiple inodes (Dave Chinner)
If every thread doing writes and being throttled start foreground
writeback, it leads to N IO submitters from at least N different
inodes at the same time, end up with N different sets of IO being
issued with potentially zero locality to each other, resulting in
much lower elevator sort/merge efficiency and hence we seek the disk
all over the place to service the different sets of IO.
OTOH, if there is only one submission thread, it doesn't jump between
inodes in the same way when congestion clears - it keeps writing to
the same inode, resulting in large related chunks of sequential IOs
being issued to the disk. This is more efficient than the above
foreground writeback because the elevator works better and the disk
seeks less.
- lock contention and cache bouncing on concurrent IO submitters (Dave Chinner)
With this patchset, the fs_mark benchmark on a 12-drive software RAID0 goes
from CPU bound to IO bound, freeing "3-4 CPUs worth of spinlock contention".
* "CPU usage has dropped by ~55%", "it certainly appears that most of
the CPU time saving comes from the removal of contention on the
inode_wb_list_lock" (IMHO at least 10% comes from the reduction of
cacheline bouncing, because the new code is able to call much less
frequently into balance_dirty_pages() and hence access the global
page states)
* the user space "App overhead" is reduced by 20%, by avoiding the
cacheline pollution by the complex writeback code path
* "for a ~5% throughput reduction", "the number of write IOs have
dropped by ~25%", and the elapsed time reduced from 41:42.17 to
40:53.23.
* On a simple test of 100 dd, it reduces the CPU %system time from 30% to 3%,
and improves IO throughput from 38MB/s to 42MB/s.
- IO size too small for fast arrays and too large for slow USB sticks
The write_chunk used by current balance_dirty_pages() cannot be
directly set to some large value (eg. 128MB) for better IO efficiency.
Because it could lead to more than 1 second user perceivable stalls.
Even the current 4MB write size may be too large for slow USB sticks.
The fact that balance_dirty_pages() starts IO on itself couples the
IO size to wait time, which makes it hard to do suitable IO size while
keeping the wait time under control.
Now it's possible to increase writeback chunk size proportional to the
disk bandwidth. In a simple test of 50 dd's on XFS, 1-HDD, 3GB ram,
the larger writeback size dramatically reduces the seek count to 1/10
(far beyond my expectation) and improves the write throughput by 24%.
- long block time in balance_dirty_pages() hurts desktop responsiveness
Many of us may have the experience: it often takes a couple of seconds
or even long time to stop a heavy writing dd/cp/tar command with
Ctrl-C or "kill -9".
- IO pipeline broken by bumpy write() progress
There are a broad class of "loop {read(buf); write(buf);}" applications
whose read() pipeline will be under-utilized or even come to a stop if
the write()s have long latencies _or_ don't progress in a constant rate.
The current threshold based throttling inherently transfers the large
low level IO completion fluctuations to bumpy application write()s,
and further deteriorates with increasing number of dirtiers and/or bdi's.
For example, when doing 50 dd's + 1 remote rsync to an XFS partition,
the rsync progresses very bumpy in legacy kernel, and throughput is
improved by 67% by this patchset. (plus the larger write chunk size,
it will be 93% speedup).
The new rate based throttling can support 1000+ dd's with excellent
smoothness, low latency and low overheads.
For the above reasons, it's much better to do IO-less and low latency
pauses in balance_dirty_pages().
Jan Kara, Dave Chinner and me explored the scheme to let
balance_dirty_pages() wait for enough writeback IO completions to
safeguard the dirty limit. However it's found to have two problems:
- in large NUMA systems, the per-cpu counters may have big accounting
errors, leading to big throttle wait time and jitters.
- NFS may kill large amount of unstable pages with one single COMMIT.
Because NFS server serves COMMIT with expensive fsync() IOs, it is
desirable to delay and reduce the number of COMMITs. So it's not
likely to optimize away such kind of bursty IO completions, and the
resulted large (and tiny) stall times in IO completion based throttling.
So here is a pause time oriented approach, which tries to control the
pause time in each balance_dirty_pages() invocations, by controlling
the number of pages dirtied before calling balance_dirty_pages(), for
smooth and efficient dirty throttling:
- avoid useless (eg. zero pause time) balance_dirty_pages() calls
- avoid too small pause time (less than 4ms, which burns CPU power)
- avoid too large pause time (more than 200ms, which hurts responsiveness)
- avoid big fluctuations of pause times
It can control pause times at will. The default policy (in a followup
patch) will be to do ~10ms pauses in 1-dd case, and increase to ~100ms
in 1000-dd case.
BEHAVIOR CHANGE
===============
(1) dirty threshold
Users will notice that the applications will get throttled once crossing
the global (background + dirty)/2=15% threshold, and then balanced around
17.5%. Before patch, the behavior is to just throttle it at 20% dirtyable
memory in 1-dd case.
Since the task will be soft throttled earlier than before, it may be
perceived by end users as performance "slow down" if his application
happens to dirty more than 15% dirtyable memory.
(2) smoothness/responsiveness
Users will notice a more responsive system during heavy writeback.
"killall dd" will take effect instantly.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2010-08-27 18:45:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-11-07 19:19:28 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-11-07 19:19:28 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:25:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:21:43 -06:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
As proposed by Chris, Dave and Jan, don't start foreground writeback IO
inside balance_dirty_pages(). Instead, simply let it idle sleep for some
time to throttle the dirtying task. In the mean while, kick off the
per-bdi flusher thread to do background writeback IO.
RATIONALS
=========
- disk seeks on concurrent writeback of multiple inodes (Dave Chinner)
If every thread doing writes and being throttled start foreground
writeback, it leads to N IO submitters from at least N different
inodes at the same time, end up with N different sets of IO being
issued with potentially zero locality to each other, resulting in
much lower elevator sort/merge efficiency and hence we seek the disk
all over the place to service the different sets of IO.
OTOH, if there is only one submission thread, it doesn't jump between
inodes in the same way when congestion clears - it keeps writing to
the same inode, resulting in large related chunks of sequential IOs
being issued to the disk. This is more efficient than the above
foreground writeback because the elevator works better and the disk
seeks less.
- lock contention and cache bouncing on concurrent IO submitters (Dave Chinner)
With this patchset, the fs_mark benchmark on a 12-drive software RAID0 goes
from CPU bound to IO bound, freeing "3-4 CPUs worth of spinlock contention".
* "CPU usage has dropped by ~55%", "it certainly appears that most of
the CPU time saving comes from the removal of contention on the
inode_wb_list_lock" (IMHO at least 10% comes from the reduction of
cacheline bouncing, because the new code is able to call much less
frequently into balance_dirty_pages() and hence access the global
page states)
* the user space "App overhead" is reduced by 20%, by avoiding the
cacheline pollution by the complex writeback code path
* "for a ~5% throughput reduction", "the number of write IOs have
dropped by ~25%", and the elapsed time reduced from 41:42.17 to
40:53.23.
* On a simple test of 100 dd, it reduces the CPU %system time from 30% to 3%,
and improves IO throughput from 38MB/s to 42MB/s.
- IO size too small for fast arrays and too large for slow USB sticks
The write_chunk used by current balance_dirty_pages() cannot be
directly set to some large value (eg. 128MB) for better IO efficiency.
Because it could lead to more than 1 second user perceivable stalls.
Even the current 4MB write size may be too large for slow USB sticks.
The fact that balance_dirty_pages() starts IO on itself couples the
IO size to wait time, which makes it hard to do suitable IO size while
keeping the wait time under control.
Now it's possible to increase writeback chunk size proportional to the
disk bandwidth. In a simple test of 50 dd's on XFS, 1-HDD, 3GB ram,
the larger writeback size dramatically reduces the seek count to 1/10
(far beyond my expectation) and improves the write throughput by 24%.
- long block time in balance_dirty_pages() hurts desktop responsiveness
Many of us may have the experience: it often takes a couple of seconds
or even long time to stop a heavy writing dd/cp/tar command with
Ctrl-C or "kill -9".
- IO pipeline broken by bumpy write() progress
There are a broad class of "loop {read(buf); write(buf);}" applications
whose read() pipeline will be under-utilized or even come to a stop if
the write()s have long latencies _or_ don't progress in a constant rate.
The current threshold based throttling inherently transfers the large
low level IO completion fluctuations to bumpy application write()s,
and further deteriorates with increasing number of dirtiers and/or bdi's.
For example, when doing 50 dd's + 1 remote rsync to an XFS partition,
the rsync progresses very bumpy in legacy kernel, and throughput is
improved by 67% by this patchset. (plus the larger write chunk size,
it will be 93% speedup).
The new rate based throttling can support 1000+ dd's with excellent
smoothness, low latency and low overheads.
For the above reasons, it's much better to do IO-less and low latency
pauses in balance_dirty_pages().
Jan Kara, Dave Chinner and me explored the scheme to let
balance_dirty_pages() wait for enough writeback IO completions to
safeguard the dirty limit. However it's found to have two problems:
- in large NUMA systems, the per-cpu counters may have big accounting
errors, leading to big throttle wait time and jitters.
- NFS may kill large amount of unstable pages with one single COMMIT.
Because NFS server serves COMMIT with expensive fsync() IOs, it is
desirable to delay and reduce the number of COMMITs. So it's not
likely to optimize away such kind of bursty IO completions, and the
resulted large (and tiny) stall times in IO completion based throttling.
So here is a pause time oriented approach, which tries to control the
pause time in each balance_dirty_pages() invocations, by controlling
the number of pages dirtied before calling balance_dirty_pages(), for
smooth and efficient dirty throttling:
- avoid useless (eg. zero pause time) balance_dirty_pages() calls
- avoid too small pause time (less than 4ms, which burns CPU power)
- avoid too large pause time (more than 200ms, which hurts responsiveness)
- avoid big fluctuations of pause times
It can control pause times at will. The default policy (in a followup
patch) will be to do ~10ms pauses in 1-dd case, and increase to ~100ms
in 1000-dd case.
BEHAVIOR CHANGE
===============
(1) dirty threshold
Users will notice that the applications will get throttled once crossing
the global (background + dirty)/2=15% threshold, and then balanced around
17.5%. Before patch, the behavior is to just throttle it at 20% dirtyable
memory in 1-dd case.
Since the task will be soft throttled earlier than before, it may be
perceived by end users as performance "slow down" if his application
happens to dirty more than 15% dirtyable memory.
(2) smoothness/responsiveness
Users will notice a more responsive system during heavy writeback.
"killall dd" will take effect instantly.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2010-08-27 18:45:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:25:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-29 23:33:20 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:25:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-29 23:33:20 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:25:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:32:32 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
As proposed by Chris, Dave and Jan, don't start foreground writeback IO
inside balance_dirty_pages(). Instead, simply let it idle sleep for some
time to throttle the dirtying task. In the mean while, kick off the
per-bdi flusher thread to do background writeback IO.
RATIONALS
=========
- disk seeks on concurrent writeback of multiple inodes (Dave Chinner)
If every thread doing writes and being throttled start foreground
writeback, it leads to N IO submitters from at least N different
inodes at the same time, end up with N different sets of IO being
issued with potentially zero locality to each other, resulting in
much lower elevator sort/merge efficiency and hence we seek the disk
all over the place to service the different sets of IO.
OTOH, if there is only one submission thread, it doesn't jump between
inodes in the same way when congestion clears - it keeps writing to
the same inode, resulting in large related chunks of sequential IOs
being issued to the disk. This is more efficient than the above
foreground writeback because the elevator works better and the disk
seeks less.
- lock contention and cache bouncing on concurrent IO submitters (Dave Chinner)
With this patchset, the fs_mark benchmark on a 12-drive software RAID0 goes
from CPU bound to IO bound, freeing "3-4 CPUs worth of spinlock contention".
* "CPU usage has dropped by ~55%", "it certainly appears that most of
the CPU time saving comes from the removal of contention on the
inode_wb_list_lock" (IMHO at least 10% comes from the reduction of
cacheline bouncing, because the new code is able to call much less
frequently into balance_dirty_pages() and hence access the global
page states)
* the user space "App overhead" is reduced by 20%, by avoiding the
cacheline pollution by the complex writeback code path
* "for a ~5% throughput reduction", "the number of write IOs have
dropped by ~25%", and the elapsed time reduced from 41:42.17 to
40:53.23.
* On a simple test of 100 dd, it reduces the CPU %system time from 30% to 3%,
and improves IO throughput from 38MB/s to 42MB/s.
- IO size too small for fast arrays and too large for slow USB sticks
The write_chunk used by current balance_dirty_pages() cannot be
directly set to some large value (eg. 128MB) for better IO efficiency.
Because it could lead to more than 1 second user perceivable stalls.
Even the current 4MB write size may be too large for slow USB sticks.
The fact that balance_dirty_pages() starts IO on itself couples the
IO size to wait time, which makes it hard to do suitable IO size while
keeping the wait time under control.
Now it's possible to increase writeback chunk size proportional to the
disk bandwidth. In a simple test of 50 dd's on XFS, 1-HDD, 3GB ram,
the larger writeback size dramatically reduces the seek count to 1/10
(far beyond my expectation) and improves the write throughput by 24%.
- long block time in balance_dirty_pages() hurts desktop responsiveness
Many of us may have the experience: it often takes a couple of seconds
or even long time to stop a heavy writing dd/cp/tar command with
Ctrl-C or "kill -9".
- IO pipeline broken by bumpy write() progress
There are a broad class of "loop {read(buf); write(buf);}" applications
whose read() pipeline will be under-utilized or even come to a stop if
the write()s have long latencies _or_ don't progress in a constant rate.
The current threshold based throttling inherently transfers the large
low level IO completion fluctuations to bumpy application write()s,
and further deteriorates with increasing number of dirtiers and/or bdi's.
For example, when doing 50 dd's + 1 remote rsync to an XFS partition,
the rsync progresses very bumpy in legacy kernel, and throughput is
improved by 67% by this patchset. (plus the larger write chunk size,
it will be 93% speedup).
The new rate based throttling can support 1000+ dd's with excellent
smoothness, low latency and low overheads.
For the above reasons, it's much better to do IO-less and low latency
pauses in balance_dirty_pages().
Jan Kara, Dave Chinner and me explored the scheme to let
balance_dirty_pages() wait for enough writeback IO completions to
safeguard the dirty limit. However it's found to have two problems:
- in large NUMA systems, the per-cpu counters may have big accounting
errors, leading to big throttle wait time and jitters.
- NFS may kill large amount of unstable pages with one single COMMIT.
Because NFS server serves COMMIT with expensive fsync() IOs, it is
desirable to delay and reduce the number of COMMITs. So it's not
likely to optimize away such kind of bursty IO completions, and the
resulted large (and tiny) stall times in IO completion based throttling.
So here is a pause time oriented approach, which tries to control the
pause time in each balance_dirty_pages() invocations, by controlling
the number of pages dirtied before calling balance_dirty_pages(), for
smooth and efficient dirty throttling:
- avoid useless (eg. zero pause time) balance_dirty_pages() calls
- avoid too small pause time (less than 4ms, which burns CPU power)
- avoid too large pause time (more than 200ms, which hurts responsiveness)
- avoid big fluctuations of pause times
It can control pause times at will. The default policy (in a followup
patch) will be to do ~10ms pauses in 1-dd case, and increase to ~100ms
in 1000-dd case.
BEHAVIOR CHANGE
===============
(1) dirty threshold
Users will notice that the applications will get throttled once crossing
the global (background + dirty)/2=15% threshold, and then balanced around
17.5%. Before patch, the behavior is to just throttle it at 20% dirtyable
memory in 1-dd case.
Since the task will be soft throttled earlier than before, it may be
perceived by end users as performance "slow down" if his application
happens to dirty more than 15% dirtyable memory.
(2) smoothness/responsiveness
Users will notice a more responsive system during heavy writeback.
"killall dd" will take effect instantly.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2010-08-27 18:45:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-29 23:33:20 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:25:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-29 23:33:20 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-11-16 19:34:48 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2009-10-09 12:40:42 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2009-09-17 19:59:14 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:25:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-11-30 11:08:55 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 19:25:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-06-19 22:18:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-11-13 19:47:32 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-06-19 22:18:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-11-13 19:47:32 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-06-19 22:18:42 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2011-11-16 19:34:48 +08:00
|
|
|
|
2011-12-02 10:21:33 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-11-16 19:34:48 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
As proposed by Chris, Dave and Jan, don't start foreground writeback IO
inside balance_dirty_pages(). Instead, simply let it idle sleep for some
time to throttle the dirtying task. In the mean while, kick off the
per-bdi flusher thread to do background writeback IO.
RATIONALS
=========
- disk seeks on concurrent writeback of multiple inodes (Dave Chinner)
If every thread doing writes and being throttled start foreground
writeback, it leads to N IO submitters from at least N different
inodes at the same time, end up with N different sets of IO being
issued with potentially zero locality to each other, resulting in
much lower elevator sort/merge efficiency and hence we seek the disk
all over the place to service the different sets of IO.
OTOH, if there is only one submission thread, it doesn't jump between
inodes in the same way when congestion clears - it keeps writing to
the same inode, resulting in large related chunks of sequential IOs
being issued to the disk. This is more efficient than the above
foreground writeback because the elevator works better and the disk
seeks less.
- lock contention and cache bouncing on concurrent IO submitters (Dave Chinner)
With this patchset, the fs_mark benchmark on a 12-drive software RAID0 goes
from CPU bound to IO bound, freeing "3-4 CPUs worth of spinlock contention".
* "CPU usage has dropped by ~55%", "it certainly appears that most of
the CPU time saving comes from the removal of contention on the
inode_wb_list_lock" (IMHO at least 10% comes from the reduction of
cacheline bouncing, because the new code is able to call much less
frequently into balance_dirty_pages() and hence access the global
page states)
* the user space "App overhead" is reduced by 20%, by avoiding the
cacheline pollution by the complex writeback code path
* "for a ~5% throughput reduction", "the number of write IOs have
dropped by ~25%", and the elapsed time reduced from 41:42.17 to
40:53.23.
* On a simple test of 100 dd, it reduces the CPU %system time from 30% to 3%,
and improves IO throughput from 38MB/s to 42MB/s.
- IO size too small for fast arrays and too large for slow USB sticks
The write_chunk used by current balance_dirty_pages() cannot be
directly set to some large value (eg. 128MB) for better IO efficiency.
Because it could lead to more than 1 second user perceivable stalls.
Even the current 4MB write size may be too large for slow USB sticks.
The fact that balance_dirty_pages() starts IO on itself couples the
IO size to wait time, which makes it hard to do suitable IO size while
keeping the wait time under control.
Now it's possible to increase writeback chunk size proportional to the
disk bandwidth. In a simple test of 50 dd's on XFS, 1-HDD, 3GB ram,
the larger writeback size dramatically reduces the seek count to 1/10
(far beyond my expectation) and improves the write throughput by 24%.
- long block time in balance_dirty_pages() hurts desktop responsiveness
Many of us may have the experience: it often takes a couple of seconds
or even long time to stop a heavy writing dd/cp/tar command with
Ctrl-C or "kill -9".
- IO pipeline broken by bumpy write() progress
There are a broad class of "loop {read(buf); write(buf);}" applications
whose read() pipeline will be under-utilized or even come to a stop if
the write()s have long latencies _or_ don't progress in a constant rate.
The current threshold based throttling inherently transfers the large
low level IO completion fluctuations to bumpy application write()s,
and further deteriorates with increasing number of dirtiers and/or bdi's.
For example, when doing 50 dd's + 1 remote rsync to an XFS partition,
the rsync progresses very bumpy in legacy kernel, and throughput is
improved by 67% by this patchset. (plus the larger write chunk size,
it will be 93% speedup).
The new rate based throttling can support 1000+ dd's with excellent
smoothness, low latency and low overheads.
For the above reasons, it's much better to do IO-less and low latency
pauses in balance_dirty_pages().
Jan Kara, Dave Chinner and me explored the scheme to let
balance_dirty_pages() wait for enough writeback IO completions to
safeguard the dirty limit. However it's found to have two problems:
- in large NUMA systems, the per-cpu counters may have big accounting
errors, leading to big throttle wait time and jitters.
- NFS may kill large amount of unstable pages with one single COMMIT.
Because NFS server serves COMMIT with expensive fsync() IOs, it is
desirable to delay and reduce the number of COMMITs. So it's not
likely to optimize away such kind of bursty IO completions, and the
resulted large (and tiny) stall times in IO completion based throttling.
So here is a pause time oriented approach, which tries to control the
pause time in each balance_dirty_pages() invocations, by controlling
the number of pages dirtied before calling balance_dirty_pages(), for
smooth and efficient dirty throttling:
- avoid useless (eg. zero pause time) balance_dirty_pages() calls
- avoid too small pause time (less than 4ms, which burns CPU power)
- avoid too large pause time (more than 200ms, which hurts responsiveness)
- avoid big fluctuations of pause times
It can control pause times at will. The default policy (in a followup
patch) will be to do ~10ms pauses in 1-dd case, and increase to ~100ms
in 1000-dd case.
BEHAVIOR CHANGE
===============
(1) dirty threshold
Users will notice that the applications will get throttled once crossing
the global (background + dirty)/2=15% threshold, and then balanced around
17.5%. Before patch, the behavior is to just throttle it at 20% dirtyable
memory in 1-dd case.
Since the task will be soft throttled earlier than before, it may be
perceived by end users as performance "slow down" if his application
happens to dirty more than 15% dirtyable memory.
(2) smoothness/responsiveness
Users will notice a more responsive system during heavy writeback.
"killall dd" will take effect instantly.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2010-08-27 18:45:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-09-23 19:37:09 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
As proposed by Chris, Dave and Jan, don't start foreground writeback IO
inside balance_dirty_pages(). Instead, simply let it idle sleep for some
time to throttle the dirtying task. In the mean while, kick off the
per-bdi flusher thread to do background writeback IO.
RATIONALS
=========
- disk seeks on concurrent writeback of multiple inodes (Dave Chinner)
If every thread doing writes and being throttled start foreground
writeback, it leads to N IO submitters from at least N different
inodes at the same time, end up with N different sets of IO being
issued with potentially zero locality to each other, resulting in
much lower elevator sort/merge efficiency and hence we seek the disk
all over the place to service the different sets of IO.
OTOH, if there is only one submission thread, it doesn't jump between
inodes in the same way when congestion clears - it keeps writing to
the same inode, resulting in large related chunks of sequential IOs
being issued to the disk. This is more efficient than the above
foreground writeback because the elevator works better and the disk
seeks less.
- lock contention and cache bouncing on concurrent IO submitters (Dave Chinner)
With this patchset, the fs_mark benchmark on a 12-drive software RAID0 goes
from CPU bound to IO bound, freeing "3-4 CPUs worth of spinlock contention".
* "CPU usage has dropped by ~55%", "it certainly appears that most of
the CPU time saving comes from the removal of contention on the
inode_wb_list_lock" (IMHO at least 10% comes from the reduction of
cacheline bouncing, because the new code is able to call much less
frequently into balance_dirty_pages() and hence access the global
page states)
* the user space "App overhead" is reduced by 20%, by avoiding the
cacheline pollution by the complex writeback code path
* "for a ~5% throughput reduction", "the number of write IOs have
dropped by ~25%", and the elapsed time reduced from 41:42.17 to
40:53.23.
* On a simple test of 100 dd, it reduces the CPU %system time from 30% to 3%,
and improves IO throughput from 38MB/s to 42MB/s.
- IO size too small for fast arrays and too large for slow USB sticks
The write_chunk used by current balance_dirty_pages() cannot be
directly set to some large value (eg. 128MB) for better IO efficiency.
Because it could lead to more than 1 second user perceivable stalls.
Even the current 4MB write size may be too large for slow USB sticks.
The fact that balance_dirty_pages() starts IO on itself couples the
IO size to wait time, which makes it hard to do suitable IO size while
keeping the wait time under control.
Now it's possible to increase writeback chunk size proportional to the
disk bandwidth. In a simple test of 50 dd's on XFS, 1-HDD, 3GB ram,
the larger writeback size dramatically reduces the seek count to 1/10
(far beyond my expectation) and improves the write throughput by 24%.
- long block time in balance_dirty_pages() hurts desktop responsiveness
Many of us may have the experience: it often takes a couple of seconds
or even long time to stop a heavy writing dd/cp/tar command with
Ctrl-C or "kill -9".
- IO pipeline broken by bumpy write() progress
There are a broad class of "loop {read(buf); write(buf);}" applications
whose read() pipeline will be under-utilized or even come to a stop if
the write()s have long latencies _or_ don't progress in a constant rate.
The current threshold based throttling inherently transfers the large
low level IO completion fluctuations to bumpy application write()s,
and further deteriorates with increasing number of dirtiers and/or bdi's.
For example, when doing 50 dd's + 1 remote rsync to an XFS partition,
the rsync progresses very bumpy in legacy kernel, and throughput is
improved by 67% by this patchset. (plus the larger write chunk size,
it will be 93% speedup).
The new rate based throttling can support 1000+ dd's with excellent
smoothness, low latency and low overheads.
For the above reasons, it's much better to do IO-less and low latency
pauses in balance_dirty_pages().
Jan Kara, Dave Chinner and me explored the scheme to let
balance_dirty_pages() wait for enough writeback IO completions to
safeguard the dirty limit. However it's found to have two problems:
- in large NUMA systems, the per-cpu counters may have big accounting
errors, leading to big throttle wait time and jitters.
- NFS may kill large amount of unstable pages with one single COMMIT.
Because NFS server serves COMMIT with expensive fsync() IOs, it is
desirable to delay and reduce the number of COMMITs. So it's not
likely to optimize away such kind of bursty IO completions, and the
resulted large (and tiny) stall times in IO completion based throttling.
So here is a pause time oriented approach, which tries to control the
pause time in each balance_dirty_pages() invocations, by controlling
the number of pages dirtied before calling balance_dirty_pages(), for
smooth and efficient dirty throttling:
- avoid useless (eg. zero pause time) balance_dirty_pages() calls
- avoid too small pause time (less than 4ms, which burns CPU power)
- avoid too large pause time (more than 200ms, which hurts responsiveness)
- avoid big fluctuations of pause times
It can control pause times at will. The default policy (in a followup
patch) will be to do ~10ms pauses in 1-dd case, and increase to ~100ms
in 1000-dd case.
BEHAVIOR CHANGE
===============
(1) dirty threshold
Users will notice that the applications will get throttled once crossing
the global (background + dirty)/2=15% threshold, and then balanced around
17.5%. Before patch, the behavior is to just throttle it at 20% dirtyable
memory in 1-dd case.
Since the task will be soft throttled earlier than before, it may be
perceived by end users as performance "slow down" if his application
happens to dirty more than 15% dirtyable memory.
(2) smoothness/responsiveness
Users will notice a more responsive system during heavy writeback.
"killall dd" will take effect instantly.
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2010-08-27 18:45:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-06-08 18:15:15 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-08 18:54:37 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2006-09-25 23:30:58 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-08 18:54:37 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2006-09-25 23:30:58 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: per task dirty rate limit
Add two fields to task_struct.
1) account dirtied pages in the individual tasks, for accuracy
2) per-task balance_dirty_pages() call intervals, for flexibility
The balance_dirty_pages() call interval (ie. nr_dirtied_pause) will
scale near-sqrt to the safety gap between dirty pages and threshold.
The main problem of per-task nr_dirtied is, if 1k+ tasks start dirtying
pages at exactly the same time, each task will be assigned a large
initial nr_dirtied_pause, so that the dirty threshold will be exceeded
long before each task reached its nr_dirtied_pause and hence call
balance_dirty_pages().
The solution is to watch for the number of pages dirtied on each CPU in
between the calls into balance_dirty_pages(). If it exceeds ratelimit_pages
(3% dirty threshold), force call balance_dirty_pages() for a chance to
set bdi->dirty_exceeded. In normal situations, this safeguarding
condition is not expected to trigger at all.
On the sqrt in dirty_poll_interval():
It will serve as an initial guess when dirty pages are still in the
freerun area.
When dirty pages are floating inside the dirty control scope [freerun,
limit], a followup patch will use some refined dirty poll interval to
get the desired pause time.
thresh-dirty (MB) sqrt
1 16
2 22
4 32
8 45
16 64
32 90
64 128
128 181
256 256
512 362
1024 512
The above table means, given 1MB (or 1GB) gap and the dd tasks polling
balance_dirty_pages() on every 16 (or 512) pages, the dirty limit won't
be exceeded as long as there are less than 16 (or 512) concurrent dd's.
So sqrt naturally leads to less overheads and more safe concurrent tasks
for large memory servers, which have large (thresh-freerun) gaps.
peter: keep the per-CPU ratelimit for safeguarding the 1k+ tasks case
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Reviewed-by: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-11 18:10:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2009-06-24 15:13:48 +09:00
|
|
|
|
2011-04-05 13:21:19 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-12-11 16:00:21 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-05-01 08:59:26 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-12-11 16:00:21 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 17:53:57 -06:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: per task dirty rate limit
Add two fields to task_struct.
1) account dirtied pages in the individual tasks, for accuracy
2) per-task balance_dirty_pages() call intervals, for flexibility
The balance_dirty_pages() call interval (ie. nr_dirtied_pause) will
scale near-sqrt to the safety gap between dirty pages and threshold.
The main problem of per-task nr_dirtied is, if 1k+ tasks start dirtying
pages at exactly the same time, each task will be assigned a large
initial nr_dirtied_pause, so that the dirty threshold will be exceeded
long before each task reached its nr_dirtied_pause and hence call
balance_dirty_pages().
The solution is to watch for the number of pages dirtied on each CPU in
between the calls into balance_dirty_pages(). If it exceeds ratelimit_pages
(3% dirty threshold), force call balance_dirty_pages() for a chance to
set bdi->dirty_exceeded. In normal situations, this safeguarding
condition is not expected to trigger at all.
On the sqrt in dirty_poll_interval():
It will serve as an initial guess when dirty pages are still in the
freerun area.
When dirty pages are floating inside the dirty control scope [freerun,
limit], a followup patch will use some refined dirty poll interval to
get the desired pause time.
thresh-dirty (MB) sqrt
1 16
2 22
4 32
8 45
16 64
32 90
64 128
128 181
256 256
512 362
1024 512
The above table means, given 1MB (or 1GB) gap and the dd tasks polling
balance_dirty_pages() on every 16 (or 512) pages, the dirty limit won't
be exceeded as long as there are less than 16 (or 512) concurrent dd's.
So sqrt naturally leads to less overheads and more safe concurrent tasks
for large memory servers, which have large (thresh-freerun) gaps.
peter: keep the per-CPU ratelimit for safeguarding the 1k+ tasks case
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Reviewed-by: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-11 18:10:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-06-11 17:53:57 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: per task dirty rate limit
Add two fields to task_struct.
1) account dirtied pages in the individual tasks, for accuracy
2) per-task balance_dirty_pages() call intervals, for flexibility
The balance_dirty_pages() call interval (ie. nr_dirtied_pause) will
scale near-sqrt to the safety gap between dirty pages and threshold.
The main problem of per-task nr_dirtied is, if 1k+ tasks start dirtying
pages at exactly the same time, each task will be assigned a large
initial nr_dirtied_pause, so that the dirty threshold will be exceeded
long before each task reached its nr_dirtied_pause and hence call
balance_dirty_pages().
The solution is to watch for the number of pages dirtied on each CPU in
between the calls into balance_dirty_pages(). If it exceeds ratelimit_pages
(3% dirty threshold), force call balance_dirty_pages() for a chance to
set bdi->dirty_exceeded. In normal situations, this safeguarding
condition is not expected to trigger at all.
On the sqrt in dirty_poll_interval():
It will serve as an initial guess when dirty pages are still in the
freerun area.
When dirty pages are floating inside the dirty control scope [freerun,
limit], a followup patch will use some refined dirty poll interval to
get the desired pause time.
thresh-dirty (MB) sqrt
1 16
2 22
4 32
8 45
16 64
32 90
64 128
128 181
256 256
512 362
1024 512
The above table means, given 1MB (or 1GB) gap and the dd tasks polling
balance_dirty_pages() on every 16 (or 512) pages, the dirty limit won't
be exceeded as long as there are less than 16 (or 512) concurrent dd's.
So sqrt naturally leads to less overheads and more safe concurrent tasks
for large memory servers, which have large (thresh-freerun) gaps.
peter: keep the per-CPU ratelimit for safeguarding the 1k+ tasks case
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Reviewed-by: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-11 18:10:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: per task dirty rate limit
Add two fields to task_struct.
1) account dirtied pages in the individual tasks, for accuracy
2) per-task balance_dirty_pages() call intervals, for flexibility
The balance_dirty_pages() call interval (ie. nr_dirtied_pause) will
scale near-sqrt to the safety gap between dirty pages and threshold.
The main problem of per-task nr_dirtied is, if 1k+ tasks start dirtying
pages at exactly the same time, each task will be assigned a large
initial nr_dirtied_pause, so that the dirty threshold will be exceeded
long before each task reached its nr_dirtied_pause and hence call
balance_dirty_pages().
The solution is to watch for the number of pages dirtied on each CPU in
between the calls into balance_dirty_pages(). If it exceeds ratelimit_pages
(3% dirty threshold), force call balance_dirty_pages() for a chance to
set bdi->dirty_exceeded. In normal situations, this safeguarding
condition is not expected to trigger at all.
On the sqrt in dirty_poll_interval():
It will serve as an initial guess when dirty pages are still in the
freerun area.
When dirty pages are floating inside the dirty control scope [freerun,
limit], a followup patch will use some refined dirty poll interval to
get the desired pause time.
thresh-dirty (MB) sqrt
1 16
2 22
4 32
8 45
16 64
32 90
64 128
128 181
256 256
512 362
1024 512
The above table means, given 1MB (or 1GB) gap and the dd tasks polling
balance_dirty_pages() on every 16 (or 512) pages, the dirty limit won't
be exceeded as long as there are less than 16 (or 512) concurrent dd's.
So sqrt naturally leads to less overheads and more safe concurrent tasks
for large memory servers, which have large (thresh-freerun) gaps.
peter: keep the per-CPU ratelimit for safeguarding the 1k+ tasks case
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Reviewed-by: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-11 18:10:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-06-24 15:13:48 +09:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: per task dirty rate limit
Add two fields to task_struct.
1) account dirtied pages in the individual tasks, for accuracy
2) per-task balance_dirty_pages() call intervals, for flexibility
The balance_dirty_pages() call interval (ie. nr_dirtied_pause) will
scale near-sqrt to the safety gap between dirty pages and threshold.
The main problem of per-task nr_dirtied is, if 1k+ tasks start dirtying
pages at exactly the same time, each task will be assigned a large
initial nr_dirtied_pause, so that the dirty threshold will be exceeded
long before each task reached its nr_dirtied_pause and hence call
balance_dirty_pages().
The solution is to watch for the number of pages dirtied on each CPU in
between the calls into balance_dirty_pages(). If it exceeds ratelimit_pages
(3% dirty threshold), force call balance_dirty_pages() for a chance to
set bdi->dirty_exceeded. In normal situations, this safeguarding
condition is not expected to trigger at all.
On the sqrt in dirty_poll_interval():
It will serve as an initial guess when dirty pages are still in the
freerun area.
When dirty pages are floating inside the dirty control scope [freerun,
limit], a followup patch will use some refined dirty poll interval to
get the desired pause time.
thresh-dirty (MB) sqrt
1 16
2 22
4 32
8 45
16 64
32 90
64 128
128 181
256 256
512 362
1024 512
The above table means, given 1MB (or 1GB) gap and the dd tasks polling
balance_dirty_pages() on every 16 (or 512) pages, the dirty limit won't
be exceeded as long as there are less than 16 (or 512) concurrent dd's.
So sqrt naturally leads to less overheads and more safe concurrent tasks
for large memory servers, which have large (thresh-freerun) gaps.
peter: keep the per-CPU ratelimit for safeguarding the 1k+ tasks case
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Reviewed-by: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-11 18:10:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2006-03-24 03:18:10 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2011-04-14 07:52:37 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-04-05 13:21:19 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-12-11 16:00:21 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2011-04-05 13:21:19 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-03-24 03:18:10 -08:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: per task dirty rate limit
Add two fields to task_struct.
1) account dirtied pages in the individual tasks, for accuracy
2) per-task balance_dirty_pages() call intervals, for flexibility
The balance_dirty_pages() call interval (ie. nr_dirtied_pause) will
scale near-sqrt to the safety gap between dirty pages and threshold.
The main problem of per-task nr_dirtied is, if 1k+ tasks start dirtying
pages at exactly the same time, each task will be assigned a large
initial nr_dirtied_pause, so that the dirty threshold will be exceeded
long before each task reached its nr_dirtied_pause and hence call
balance_dirty_pages().
The solution is to watch for the number of pages dirtied on each CPU in
between the calls into balance_dirty_pages(). If it exceeds ratelimit_pages
(3% dirty threshold), force call balance_dirty_pages() for a chance to
set bdi->dirty_exceeded. In normal situations, this safeguarding
condition is not expected to trigger at all.
On the sqrt in dirty_poll_interval():
It will serve as an initial guess when dirty pages are still in the
freerun area.
When dirty pages are floating inside the dirty control scope [freerun,
limit], a followup patch will use some refined dirty poll interval to
get the desired pause time.
thresh-dirty (MB) sqrt
1 16
2 22
4 32
8 45
16 64
32 90
64 128
128 181
256 256
512 362
1024 512
The above table means, given 1MB (or 1GB) gap and the dd tasks polling
balance_dirty_pages() on every 16 (or 512) pages, the dirty limit won't
be exceeded as long as there are less than 16 (or 512) concurrent dd's.
So sqrt naturally leads to less overheads and more safe concurrent tasks
for large memory servers, which have large (thresh-freerun) gaps.
peter: keep the per-CPU ratelimit for safeguarding the 1k+ tasks case
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Reviewed-by: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-11 18:10:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-12-11 16:00:21 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-02-28 20:13:21 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:29 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-11 14:17:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-03-21 16:34:09 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-06-30 01:55:42 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-07-09 14:52:32 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:30:45 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-09-23 15:57:19 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-09-23 15:57:19 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-05-20 09:18:47 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2010-04-06 14:25:14 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-04-06 14:25:14 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-04-06 14:25:14 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-10-07 21:54:10 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-04-06 14:25:14 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-04-06 14:25:14 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-04-06 14:25:14 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-05-20 09:18:47 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: per task dirty rate limit
Add two fields to task_struct.
1) account dirtied pages in the individual tasks, for accuracy
2) per-task balance_dirty_pages() call intervals, for flexibility
The balance_dirty_pages() call interval (ie. nr_dirtied_pause) will
scale near-sqrt to the safety gap between dirty pages and threshold.
The main problem of per-task nr_dirtied is, if 1k+ tasks start dirtying
pages at exactly the same time, each task will be assigned a large
initial nr_dirtied_pause, so that the dirty threshold will be exceeded
long before each task reached its nr_dirtied_pause and hence call
balance_dirty_pages().
The solution is to watch for the number of pages dirtied on each CPU in
between the calls into balance_dirty_pages(). If it exceeds ratelimit_pages
(3% dirty threshold), force call balance_dirty_pages() for a chance to
set bdi->dirty_exceeded. In normal situations, this safeguarding
condition is not expected to trigger at all.
On the sqrt in dirty_poll_interval():
It will serve as an initial guess when dirty pages are still in the
freerun area.
When dirty pages are floating inside the dirty control scope [freerun,
limit], a followup patch will use some refined dirty poll interval to
get the desired pause time.
thresh-dirty (MB) sqrt
1 16
2 22
4 32
8 45
16 64
32 90
64 128
128 181
256 256
512 362
1024 512
The above table means, given 1MB (or 1GB) gap and the dd tasks polling
balance_dirty_pages() on every 16 (or 512) pages, the dirty limit won't
be exceeded as long as there are less than 16 (or 512) concurrent dd's.
So sqrt naturally leads to less overheads and more safe concurrent tasks
for large memory servers, which have large (thresh-freerun) gaps.
peter: keep the per-CPU ratelimit for safeguarding the 1k+ tasks case
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Reviewed-by: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-11 18:10:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-09-29 02:01:25 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: per task dirty rate limit
Add two fields to task_struct.
1) account dirtied pages in the individual tasks, for accuracy
2) per-task balance_dirty_pages() call intervals, for flexibility
The balance_dirty_pages() call interval (ie. nr_dirtied_pause) will
scale near-sqrt to the safety gap between dirty pages and threshold.
The main problem of per-task nr_dirtied is, if 1k+ tasks start dirtying
pages at exactly the same time, each task will be assigned a large
initial nr_dirtied_pause, so that the dirty threshold will be exceeded
long before each task reached its nr_dirtied_pause and hence call
balance_dirty_pages().
The solution is to watch for the number of pages dirtied on each CPU in
between the calls into balance_dirty_pages(). If it exceeds ratelimit_pages
(3% dirty threshold), force call balance_dirty_pages() for a chance to
set bdi->dirty_exceeded. In normal situations, this safeguarding
condition is not expected to trigger at all.
On the sqrt in dirty_poll_interval():
It will serve as an initial guess when dirty pages are still in the
freerun area.
When dirty pages are floating inside the dirty control scope [freerun,
limit], a followup patch will use some refined dirty poll interval to
get the desired pause time.
thresh-dirty (MB) sqrt
1 16
2 22
4 32
8 45
16 64
32 90
64 128
128 181
256 256
512 362
1024 512
The above table means, given 1MB (or 1GB) gap and the dd tasks polling
balance_dirty_pages() on every 16 (or 512) pages, the dirty limit won't
be exceeded as long as there are less than 16 (or 512) concurrent dd's.
So sqrt naturally leads to less overheads and more safe concurrent tasks
for large memory servers, which have large (thresh-freerun) gaps.
peter: keep the per-CPU ratelimit for safeguarding the 1k+ tasks case
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Reviewed-by: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-11 18:10:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2012-05-06 13:21:42 +08:00
|
|
|
|
writeback: per task dirty rate limit
Add two fields to task_struct.
1) account dirtied pages in the individual tasks, for accuracy
2) per-task balance_dirty_pages() call intervals, for flexibility
The balance_dirty_pages() call interval (ie. nr_dirtied_pause) will
scale near-sqrt to the safety gap between dirty pages and threshold.
The main problem of per-task nr_dirtied is, if 1k+ tasks start dirtying
pages at exactly the same time, each task will be assigned a large
initial nr_dirtied_pause, so that the dirty threshold will be exceeded
long before each task reached its nr_dirtied_pause and hence call
balance_dirty_pages().
The solution is to watch for the number of pages dirtied on each CPU in
between the calls into balance_dirty_pages(). If it exceeds ratelimit_pages
(3% dirty threshold), force call balance_dirty_pages() for a chance to
set bdi->dirty_exceeded. In normal situations, this safeguarding
condition is not expected to trigger at all.
On the sqrt in dirty_poll_interval():
It will serve as an initial guess when dirty pages are still in the
freerun area.
When dirty pages are floating inside the dirty control scope [freerun,
limit], a followup patch will use some refined dirty poll interval to
get the desired pause time.
thresh-dirty (MB) sqrt
1 16
2 22
4 32
8 45
16 64
32 90
64 128
128 181
256 256
512 362
1024 512
The above table means, given 1MB (or 1GB) gap and the dd tasks polling
balance_dirty_pages() on every 16 (or 512) pages, the dirty limit won't
be exceeded as long as there are less than 16 (or 512) concurrent dd's.
So sqrt naturally leads to less overheads and more safe concurrent tasks
for large memory servers, which have large (thresh-freerun) gaps.
peter: keep the per-CPU ratelimit for safeguarding the 1k+ tasks case
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Reviewed-by: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
2011-06-11 18:10:12 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-06-19 14:53:51 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2012-09-28 20:27:49 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-09-28 20:27:49 +08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-06-19 14:53:51 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-01-29 16:37:38 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-09-29 02:01:25 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2012-05-24 18:59:11 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-09 17:19:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-11 14:17:30 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-09 17:19:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-19 14:13:33 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-09 17:19:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2007-05-10 22:22:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-05-10 22:22:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2007-05-10 22:22:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-09 17:19:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2007-05-10 22:22:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:04 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:06 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:04 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-09 17:19:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:04 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:04 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2010-06-06 10:38:15 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-09 17:19:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2010-06-06 10:38:15 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-09 17:19:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:06 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:09 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-09 17:19:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:09 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:11 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:11 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: make mapping->writeback_index to point to the last written page
For range-cyclic writeback (e.g. kupdate), the writeback code sets a
continuation point of the next writeback to mapping->writeback_index which
is set the page after the last written page. This happens so that we
evenly write the whole file even if pages in it get continuously
redirtied.
However, in some cases, sequential writer is writing in the middle of the
page and it just redirties the last written page by continuing from that.
For example with an application which uses a file as a big ring buffer we
see:
[1st writeback session]
...
flush-8:0-2743 4571: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898514 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4571: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898522 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4571: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898530 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4571: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898538 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4571: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898546 + 8
kworker/0:1-11 4571: block_rq_issue: 8,0 W 0 () 94898514 + 40
>> flush-8:0-2743 4571: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898554 + 8
>> flush-8:0-2743 4571: block_rq_issue: 8,0 W 0 () 94898554 + 8
[2nd writeback session after 35sec]
flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898562 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898570 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898578 + 8
...
kworker/0:1-11 4606: block_rq_issue: 8,0 W 0 () 94898562 + 640
kworker/0:1-11 4606: block_rq_issue: 8,0 W 0 () 94899202 + 72
...
flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899962 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899970 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899978 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899986 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899994 + 8
kworker/0:1-11 4606: block_rq_issue: 8,0 W 0 () 94899962 + 40
>> flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898554 + 8
>> flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_rq_issue: 8,0 W 0 () 94898554 + 8
So we seeked back to 94898554 after we wrote all the pages at the end of
the file.
This extra seek seems unnecessary. If we continue writeback from the last
written page, we can avoid it and do not cause harm to other cases. The
original intent of even writeout over the whole file is preserved and if
the page does not get redirtied pagevec_lookup_tag() just skips it.
As an exceptional case, when I/O error happens, set done_index to the next
page as the comment in the code suggests.
Tested-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2011-03-22 16:33:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:11 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:09 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:09 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:10 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:10 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:09 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2010-07-07 13:24:08 +10:00
|
|
|
|
2007-05-10 22:22:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:06 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
writeback: make mapping->writeback_index to point to the last written page
For range-cyclic writeback (e.g. kupdate), the writeback code sets a
continuation point of the next writeback to mapping->writeback_index which
is set the page after the last written page. This happens so that we
evenly write the whole file even if pages in it get continuously
redirtied.
However, in some cases, sequential writer is writing in the middle of the
page and it just redirties the last written page by continuing from that.
For example with an application which uses a file as a big ring buffer we
see:
[1st writeback session]
...
flush-8:0-2743 4571: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898514 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4571: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898522 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4571: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898530 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4571: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898538 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4571: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898546 + 8
kworker/0:1-11 4571: block_rq_issue: 8,0 W 0 () 94898514 + 40
>> flush-8:0-2743 4571: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898554 + 8
>> flush-8:0-2743 4571: block_rq_issue: 8,0 W 0 () 94898554 + 8
[2nd writeback session after 35sec]
flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898562 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898570 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898578 + 8
...
kworker/0:1-11 4606: block_rq_issue: 8,0 W 0 () 94898562 + 640
kworker/0:1-11 4606: block_rq_issue: 8,0 W 0 () 94899202 + 72
...
flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899962 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899970 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899978 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899986 + 8
flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94899994 + 8
kworker/0:1-11 4606: block_rq_issue: 8,0 W 0 () 94899962 + 40
>> flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_bio_queue: 8,0 W 94898554 + 8
>> flush-8:0-2743 4606: block_rq_issue: 8,0 W 0 () 94898554 + 8
So we seeked back to 94898554 after we wrote all the pages at the end of
the file.
This extra seek seems unnecessary. If we continue writeback from the last
written page, we can avoid it and do not cause harm to other cases. The
original intent of even writeout over the whole file is preserved and if
the page does not get redirtied pagevec_lookup_tag() just skips it.
As an exceptional case, when I/O error happens, set done_index to the next
page as the comment in the code suggests.
Tested-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Jun'ichi Nomura <j-nomura@ce.jp.nec.com>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2011-03-22 16:33:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:06 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-06-09 10:37:18 +10:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:06 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2010-08-24 11:44:34 +10:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mm: write_cache_pages integrity fix
In write_cache_pages, nr_to_write is heeded even for data-integrity syncs,
so the function will return success after writing out nr_to_write pages,
even if that was not sufficient to guarantee data integrity.
The callers tend to set it to values that could break data interity
semantics easily in practice. For example, nr_to_write can be set to
mapping->nr_pages * 2, however if a file has a single, dirty page, then
fsync is called, subsequent pages might be concurrently added and dirtied,
then write_cache_pages might writeout two of these newly dirty pages,
while not writing out the old page that should have been written out.
Fix this by ignoring nr_to_write if it is a data integrity sync.
This is a data integrity bug.
The reason this has been done in the past is to avoid stalling sync
operations behind page dirtiers.
"If a file has one dirty page at offset 1000000000000000 then someone
does an fsync() and someone else gets in first and starts madly writing
pages at offset 0, we want to write that page at 1000000000000000.
Somehow."
What we do today is return success after an arbitrary amount of pages are
written, whether or not we have provided the data-integrity semantics that
the caller has asked for. Even this doesn't actually fix all stall cases
completely: in the above situation, if the file has a huge number of pages
in pagecache (but not dirty), then mapping->nrpages is going to be huge,
even if pages are being dirtied.
This change does indeed make the possibility of long stalls lager, and
that's not a good thing, but lying about data integrity is even worse. We
have to either perform the sync, or return -ELINUXISLAME so at least the
caller knows what has happened.
There are subsequent competing approaches in the works to solve the stall
problems properly, without compromising data integrity.
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2009-01-06 14:39:08 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-02-12 04:34:23 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:04 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:04 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2009-01-06 14:39:04 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-06-09 10:37:18 +10:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-07-11 19:27:31 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-05-10 22:22:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-03-17 10:47:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-05-10 22:22:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-03-17 10:47:06 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-05-10 22:22:51 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-08-29 19:06:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-11-16 15:07:01 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-09-25 23:30:57 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-16 15:07:01 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-05-01 08:59:26 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-02-10 01:43:15 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-01-13 15:45:49 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2007-02-10 01:43:15 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-03-31 15:19:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-01-11 13:06:37 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-03-31 15:19:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-10-26 14:21:35 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-03-31 15:19:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-01-23 10:07:47 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2009-03-31 15:19:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-04-14 07:52:37 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-03-31 15:19:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-20 02:31:26 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-03-31 15:19:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-10-26 14:21:33 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-09-12 15:13:53 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-10-26 14:21:33 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-09-12 15:13:53 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-10-26 14:21:33 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-20 01:27:18 +02:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2006-12-10 02:19:24 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 19:45:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-12-10 02:19:24 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-07-17 04:03:34 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2009-03-31 15:19:39 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-12-10 02:19:24 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 19:45:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-12-10 02:19:24 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-03-24 03:18:11 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-03-24 03:18:11 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-08-08 15:22:00 -06:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-08-08 15:22:00 -06:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-09-16 11:50:14 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2009-02-18 14:48:18 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mm: reclaim invalidated page ASAP
invalidate_mapping_pages is very big hint to reclaimer. It means user
doesn't want to use the page any more. So in order to prevent working set
page eviction, this patch move the page into tail of inactive list by
PG_reclaim.
Please, remember that pages in inactive list are working set as well as
active list. If we don't move pages into inactive list's tail, pages near
by tail of inactive list can be evicted although we have a big clue about
useless pages. It's totally bad.
Now PG_readahead/PG_reclaim is shared. fe3cba17 added ClearPageReclaim
into clear_page_dirty_for_io for preventing fast reclaiming readahead
marker page.
In this series, PG_reclaim is used by invalidated page, too. If VM find
the page is invalidated and it's dirty, it sets PG_reclaim to reclaim
asap. Then, when the dirty page will be writeback,
clear_page_dirty_for_io will clear PG_reclaim unconditionally. It
disturbs this serie's goal.
I think it's okay to clear PG_readahead when the page is dirty, not
writeback time. So this patch moves ClearPageReadahead. In v4,
ClearPageReadahead in set_page_dirty has a problem which is reported by
Steven Barrett. It's due to compound page. Some driver(ex, audio) calls
set_page_dirty with compound page which isn't on LRU. but my patch does
ClearPageRelcaim on compound page. In non-CONFIG_PAGEFLAGS_EXTENDED, it
breaks PageTail flag.
I think it doesn't affect THP and pass my test with THP enabling but Cced
Andrea for double check.
Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>
Reported-by: Steven Barrett <damentz@liquorix.net>
Reviewed-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Acked-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Acked-by: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@kernel.dk>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2011-03-22 16:32:54 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[PATCH] BLOCK: Make it possible to disable the block layer [try #6]
Make it possible to disable the block layer. Not all embedded devices require
it, some can make do with just JFFS2, NFS, ramfs, etc - none of which require
the block layer to be present.
This patch does the following:
(*) Introduces CONFIG_BLOCK to disable the block layer, buffering and blockdev
support.
(*) Adds dependencies on CONFIG_BLOCK to any configuration item that controls
an item that uses the block layer. This includes:
(*) Block I/O tracing.
(*) Disk partition code.
(*) All filesystems that are block based, eg: Ext3, ReiserFS, ISOFS.
(*) The SCSI layer. As far as I can tell, even SCSI chardevs use the
block layer to do scheduling. Some drivers that use SCSI facilities -
such as USB storage - end up disabled indirectly from this.
(*) Various block-based device drivers, such as IDE and the old CDROM
drivers.
(*) MTD blockdev handling and FTL.
(*) JFFS - which uses set_bdev_super(), something it could avoid doing by
taking a leaf out of JFFS2's book.
(*) Makes most of the contents of linux/blkdev.h, linux/buffer_head.h and
linux/elevator.h contingent on CONFIG_BLOCK being set. sector_div() is,
however, still used in places, and so is still available.
(*) Also made contingent are the contents of linux/mpage.h, linux/genhd.h and
parts of linux/fs.h.
(*) Makes a number of files in fs/ contingent on CONFIG_BLOCK.
(*) Makes mm/bounce.c (bounce buffering) contingent on CONFIG_BLOCK.
(*) set_page_dirty() doesn't call __set_page_dirty_buffers() if CONFIG_BLOCK
is not enabled.
(*) fs/no-block.c is created to hold out-of-line stubs and things that are
required when CONFIG_BLOCK is not set:
(*) Default blockdev file operations (to give error ENODEV on opening).
(*) Makes some /proc changes:
(*) /proc/devices does not list any blockdevs.
(*) /proc/diskstats and /proc/partitions are contingent on CONFIG_BLOCK.
(*) Makes some compat ioctl handling contingent on CONFIG_BLOCK.
(*) If CONFIG_BLOCK is not defined, makes sys_quotactl() return -ENODEV if
given command other than Q_SYNC or if a special device is specified.
(*) In init/do_mounts.c, no reference is made to the blockdev routines if
CONFIG_BLOCK is not defined. This does not prohibit NFS roots or JFFS2.
(*) The bdflush, ioprio_set and ioprio_get syscalls can now be absent (return
error ENOSYS by way of cond_syscall if so).
(*) The seclvl_bd_claim() and seclvl_bd_release() security calls do nothing if
CONFIG_BLOCK is not set, since they can't then happen.
Signed-Off-By: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
2006-09-30 20:45:40 +02:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2006-03-24 03:18:11 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-03-10 08:52:07 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-07-19 01:47:22 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VM: Fix nasty and subtle race in shared mmap'ed page writeback
The VM layer (on the face of it, fairly reasonably) expected that when
it does a ->writepage() call to the filesystem, it would write out the
full page at that point in time. Especially since it had earlier marked
the whole page dirty with "set_page_dirty()".
But that isn't actually the case: ->writepage() does not actually write
a page, it writes the parts of the page that have been explicitly marked
dirty before, *and* that had not got written out for other reasons since
the last time we told it they were dirty.
That last caveat is the important one.
Which _most_ of the time ends up being the whole page (since we had
called "set_page_dirty()" on the page earlier), but if the filesystem
had done any dirty flushing of its own (for example, to honor some
internal write ordering guarantees), it might end up doing only a
partial page IO (or none at all) when ->writepage() is actually called.
That is the correct thing in general (since we actually often _want_
only the known-dirty parts of the page to be written out), but the
shared dirty page handling had implicitly forgotten about these details,
and had a number of cases where it was doing just the "->writepage()"
part, without telling the low-level filesystem that the whole page might
have been re-dirtied as part of being mapped writably into user space.
Since most of the time the FS did actually write out the full page, we
didn't notice this for a loong time, and this needed some really odd
patterns to trigger. But it caused occasional corruption with rtorrent
and with the Debian "apt" database, because both use shared mmaps to
update the end result.
This fixes it. Finally. After way too much hair-pulling.
Acked-by: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Acked-by: Martin J. Bligh <mbligh@google.com>
Acked-by: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>
Acked-by: Martin Johansson <martin@fatbob.nu>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Acked-by: Andrei Popa <andrei.popa@i-neo.ro>
Cc: High Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: Gordon Farquharson <gordonfarquharson@gmail.com>
Cc: Guillaume Chazarain <guichaz@yahoo.fr>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Kenneth Cheng <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Tobias Diedrich <ranma@tdiedrich.de>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-12-29 10:00:58 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-07-19 01:47:22 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VM: Fix nasty and subtle race in shared mmap'ed page writeback
The VM layer (on the face of it, fairly reasonably) expected that when
it does a ->writepage() call to the filesystem, it would write out the
full page at that point in time. Especially since it had earlier marked
the whole page dirty with "set_page_dirty()".
But that isn't actually the case: ->writepage() does not actually write
a page, it writes the parts of the page that have been explicitly marked
dirty before, *and* that had not got written out for other reasons since
the last time we told it they were dirty.
That last caveat is the important one.
Which _most_ of the time ends up being the whole page (since we had
called "set_page_dirty()" on the page earlier), but if the filesystem
had done any dirty flushing of its own (for example, to honor some
internal write ordering guarantees), it might end up doing only a
partial page IO (or none at all) when ->writepage() is actually called.
That is the correct thing in general (since we actually often _want_
only the known-dirty parts of the page to be written out), but the
shared dirty page handling had implicitly forgotten about these details,
and had a number of cases where it was doing just the "->writepage()"
part, without telling the low-level filesystem that the whole page might
have been re-dirtied as part of being mapped writably into user space.
Since most of the time the FS did actually write out the full page, we
didn't notice this for a loong time, and this needed some really odd
patterns to trigger. But it caused occasional corruption with rtorrent
and with the Debian "apt" database, because both use shared mmaps to
update the end result.
This fixes it. Finally. After way too much hair-pulling.
Acked-by: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Acked-by: Martin J. Bligh <mbligh@google.com>
Acked-by: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>
Acked-by: Martin Johansson <martin@fatbob.nu>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Acked-by: Andrei Popa <andrei.popa@i-neo.ro>
Cc: High Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: Gordon Farquharson <gordonfarquharson@gmail.com>
Cc: Guillaume Chazarain <guichaz@yahoo.fr>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Kenneth Cheng <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Tobias Diedrich <ranma@tdiedrich.de>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-12-29 10:00:58 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2006-12-10 02:19:24 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:47 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VM: Fix nasty and subtle race in shared mmap'ed page writeback
The VM layer (on the face of it, fairly reasonably) expected that when
it does a ->writepage() call to the filesystem, it would write out the
full page at that point in time. Especially since it had earlier marked
the whole page dirty with "set_page_dirty()".
But that isn't actually the case: ->writepage() does not actually write
a page, it writes the parts of the page that have been explicitly marked
dirty before, *and* that had not got written out for other reasons since
the last time we told it they were dirty.
That last caveat is the important one.
Which _most_ of the time ends up being the whole page (since we had
called "set_page_dirty()" on the page earlier), but if the filesystem
had done any dirty flushing of its own (for example, to honor some
internal write ordering guarantees), it might end up doing only a
partial page IO (or none at all) when ->writepage() is actually called.
That is the correct thing in general (since we actually often _want_
only the known-dirty parts of the page to be written out), but the
shared dirty page handling had implicitly forgotten about these details,
and had a number of cases where it was doing just the "->writepage()"
part, without telling the low-level filesystem that the whole page might
have been re-dirtied as part of being mapped writably into user space.
Since most of the time the FS did actually write out the full page, we
didn't notice this for a loong time, and this needed some really odd
patterns to trigger. But it caused occasional corruption with rtorrent
and with the Debian "apt" database, because both use shared mmaps to
update the end result.
This fixes it. Finally. After way too much hair-pulling.
Acked-by: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Acked-by: Martin J. Bligh <mbligh@google.com>
Acked-by: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>
Acked-by: Martin Johansson <martin@fatbob.nu>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Acked-by: Andrei Popa <andrei.popa@i-neo.ro>
Cc: High Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: Gordon Farquharson <gordonfarquharson@gmail.com>
Cc: Guillaume Chazarain <guichaz@yahoo.fr>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Kenneth Cheng <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Tobias Diedrich <ranma@tdiedrich.de>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-12-29 10:00:58 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
VM: Fix nasty and subtle race in shared mmap'ed page writeback
The VM layer (on the face of it, fairly reasonably) expected that when
it does a ->writepage() call to the filesystem, it would write out the
full page at that point in time. Especially since it had earlier marked
the whole page dirty with "set_page_dirty()".
But that isn't actually the case: ->writepage() does not actually write
a page, it writes the parts of the page that have been explicitly marked
dirty before, *and* that had not got written out for other reasons since
the last time we told it they were dirty.
That last caveat is the important one.
Which _most_ of the time ends up being the whole page (since we had
called "set_page_dirty()" on the page earlier), but if the filesystem
had done any dirty flushing of its own (for example, to honor some
internal write ordering guarantees), it might end up doing only a
partial page IO (or none at all) when ->writepage() is actually called.
That is the correct thing in general (since we actually often _want_
only the known-dirty parts of the page to be written out), but the
shared dirty page handling had implicitly forgotten about these details,
and had a number of cases where it was doing just the "->writepage()"
part, without telling the low-level filesystem that the whole page might
have been re-dirtied as part of being mapped writably into user space.
Since most of the time the FS did actually write out the full page, we
didn't notice this for a loong time, and this needed some really odd
patterns to trigger. But it caused occasional corruption with rtorrent
and with the Debian "apt" database, because both use shared mmaps to
update the end result.
This fixes it. Finally. After way too much hair-pulling.
Acked-by: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Acked-by: Martin J. Bligh <mbligh@google.com>
Acked-by: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>
Acked-by: Martin Johansson <martin@fatbob.nu>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Acked-by: Andrei Popa <andrei.popa@i-neo.ro>
Cc: High Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: Gordon Farquharson <gordonfarquharson@gmail.com>
Cc: Guillaume Chazarain <guichaz@yahoo.fr>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Kenneth Cheng <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Tobias Diedrich <ranma@tdiedrich.de>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-12-29 10:00:58 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
VM: Fix nasty and subtle race in shared mmap'ed page writeback
The VM layer (on the face of it, fairly reasonably) expected that when
it does a ->writepage() call to the filesystem, it would write out the
full page at that point in time. Especially since it had earlier marked
the whole page dirty with "set_page_dirty()".
But that isn't actually the case: ->writepage() does not actually write
a page, it writes the parts of the page that have been explicitly marked
dirty before, *and* that had not got written out for other reasons since
the last time we told it they were dirty.
That last caveat is the important one.
Which _most_ of the time ends up being the whole page (since we had
called "set_page_dirty()" on the page earlier), but if the filesystem
had done any dirty flushing of its own (for example, to honor some
internal write ordering guarantees), it might end up doing only a
partial page IO (or none at all) when ->writepage() is actually called.
That is the correct thing in general (since we actually often _want_
only the known-dirty parts of the page to be written out), but the
shared dirty page handling had implicitly forgotten about these details,
and had a number of cases where it was doing just the "->writepage()"
part, without telling the low-level filesystem that the whole page might
have been re-dirtied as part of being mapped writably into user space.
Since most of the time the FS did actually write out the full page, we
didn't notice this for a loong time, and this needed some really odd
patterns to trigger. But it caused occasional corruption with rtorrent
and with the Debian "apt" database, because both use shared mmaps to
update the end result.
This fixes it. Finally. After way too much hair-pulling.
Acked-by: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Acked-by: Martin J. Bligh <mbligh@google.com>
Acked-by: Martin Michlmayr <tbm@cyrius.com>
Acked-by: Martin Johansson <martin@fatbob.nu>
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Acked-by: Andrei Popa <andrei.popa@i-neo.ro>
Cc: High Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>
Cc: Gordon Farquharson <gordonfarquharson@gmail.com>
Cc: Guillaume Chazarain <guichaz@yahoo.fr>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Kenneth Cheng <kenneth.w.chen@intel.com>
Cc: Tobias Diedrich <ranma@tdiedrich.de>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
2006-12-29 10:00:58 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-11-18 01:10:53 -08:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-09-12 15:13:53 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-09-12 15:13:53 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:48 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 19:45:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:48 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-30 00:54:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:48 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:50 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:48 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 19:45:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-07-25 17:12:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-09-12 15:13:53 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-07-19 01:49:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2011-07-25 17:12:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-09-12 15:13:53 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2013-09-12 15:13:53 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-09-12 15:13:53 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:48 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 19:45:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:48 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-04-30 00:54:37 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 23:25:48 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2010-08-09 17:19:12 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2008-07-25 19:45:32 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-07-19 01:49:17 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2010-10-26 14:21:33 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2013-09-12 15:13:53 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2007-10-16 01:24:40 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2011-07-25 17:12:31 -07:00
|
|
|
|
2005-04-16 15:20:36 -07:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mm: only enforce stable page writes if the backing device requires it
Create a helper function to check if a backing device requires stable
page writes and, if so, performs the necessary wait. Then, make it so
that all points in the memory manager that handle making pages writable
use the helper function. This should provide stable page write support
to most filesystems, while eliminating unnecessary waiting for devices
that don't require the feature.
Before this patchset, all filesystems would block, regardless of whether
or not it was necessary. ext3 would wait, but still generate occasional
checksum errors. The network filesystems were left to do their own
thing, so they'd wait too.
After this patchset, all the disk filesystems except ext3 and btrfs will
wait only if the hardware requires it. ext3 (if necessary) snapshots
pages instead of blocking, and btrfs provides its own bdi so the mm will
never wait. Network filesystems haven't been touched, so either they
provide their own stable page guarantees or they don't block at all.
The blocking behavior is back to what it was before 3.0 if you don't
have a disk requiring stable page writes.
Here's the result of using dbench to test latency on ext2:
3.8.0-rc3:
Operation Count AvgLat MaxLat
----------------------------------------
WriteX 109347 0.028 59.817
ReadX 347180 0.004 3.391
Flush 15514 29.828 287.283
Throughput 57.429 MB/sec 4 clients 4 procs max_latency=287.290 ms
3.8.0-rc3 + patches:
WriteX 105556 0.029 4.273
ReadX 335004 0.005 4.112
Flush 14982 30.540 298.634
Throughput 55.4496 MB/sec 4 clients 4 procs max_latency=298.650 ms
As you can see, the maximum write latency drops considerably with this
patch enabled. The other filesystems (ext3/ext4/xfs/btrfs) behave
similarly, but see the cover letter for those results.
Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
Acked-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Cc: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>
Cc: Joel Becker <jlbec@evilplan.org>
Cc: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@suse.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@gmail.com>
Cc: Ron Minnich <rminnich@sandia.gov>
Cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
2013-02-21 16:42:51 -08:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
