Re: [PATCH 8/8] vm: Add an tuning knob for vm.max_writeback_mb

[Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>]

On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 12:29 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:

> > I'm still not convinced this knob is worth the patch and I'm inclined to
> > flat out NAK it..
> > 
> > The whole point of MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES seems to occasionally check the
> > dirty stats again and not write out too much.
> 
> The problem is that 'too much' is a very abstract thing.  When a process
> is stuck in balance_dirty_pages, we want them to do the minimal amount
> of work (or waiting) required to get them safely back inside file_write().

>From the VMs POV I think we'd like to keep near the dirty limit as that
maximizes the write cache efficiency. Of course that needs to be
balanced against write out efficiency.

> > Clearly the current limit isn't sufficient for some people,
> >  - xfs/btrfs seem generally stuck in balance_dirty_pages()'s
> > congestion_wait()
> >  - ext4 generates inconveniently small extents
> 
> This is actually two different side of the same problem.  The filesystem
> knows that bytes 0-N in the file are setup for delayed allocation.
> Writepage is called on byte 0, and now the filesystem gets to decide how
> big an extent to make.
> 
> It could decide to make an extent based on the total number of bytes
> under delayed allocation, and hope the caller of writepage will be kind
> enough to send down the pages contiguously afterward (xfs), or it could
> make a smaller extent based on something closer to the total number of
> bytes this particular writepages() call plans on writing (I guess what
> ext4 is doing).
> 
> Either way, if pdflush or the bdi thread or whoever ends up switching to
> another file during a big streaming write, the end result is that we
> fragment.  We may fragment the file (ext4) or we may fragment the
> writeback (xfs), but the end result isn't good.

OK, so what we want is for a way to re-enter the whole
writeback_inodes() path onto the same file, right?

That would result in the writeback continuing where it left off last.

Wu, can we make writeback_inodes() do something like that? Pass some
magic along in wbc maybe?

> Looking at two xfs examples, this is the IO for two concurrent streaming
> writers (two different files) on 2.6.31-rc8 (pdflush is doing all the IO
> in this graph, sorry the legend colors wrapped on me).  If you squint,
> you can kind of see the fingers of IO as pdflush switches between files.
> 
> http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/seekwatcher/xfs-tag.png
> 
> And here is the IO when XFS forces nr_to_write much higher with a patch
> from Christoph:
> 
> http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/seekwatcher/xfs-extend-tag.png
> 
> These graphs would look the same no matter what I did with
> congestion_wait().  The first graph is slower just because pdflush
> switches from one file to another.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > The first seems to suggest to me the number isn't well balanced against
> > whatever drives congestion_wait() (that thing still gives me a
> > head-ache).
> > 
> > # git grep clear_bdi_congested
> > drivers/block/pktcdvd.c:                clear_bdi_congested(&pd->disk->queue->backing_dev_info,
> > fs/fuse/dev.c:                  clear_bdi_congested(&fc->bdi, BLK_RW_SYNC);
> > fs/fuse/dev.c:                  clear_bdi_congested(&fc->bdi, BLK_RW_ASYNC);
> > fs/nfs/write.c:         clear_bdi_congested(&nfss->backing_dev_info, BLK_RW_ASYNC);
> > include/linux/backing-dev.h:void clear_bdi_congested(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, int sync);
> > include/linux/blkdev.h: clear_bdi_congested(&q->backing_dev_info, sync);
> > mm/backing-dev.c:void clear_bdi_congested(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, int sync)
> > mm/backing-dev.c:EXPORT_SYMBOL(clear_bdi_congested);
> > 
> > Suggests that regular block devices don't even manage device congestion
> > and it reverts to a simple timeout -- should we fix that?
> 
> Look for blk_clear_queue_congested().  It is managed, I personally don't
> think it is very useful.  But, that's a different thread ;)

Ah, how blind I am ;-)

Right, so what can we do to make it useful? I think the intent is to
limit the number of pages in writeback and provide some progress
feedback to the vm.

Going by your experience we're failing there.

> > Now, suppose it were to do something useful, I'd think we'd want to
> > limit write-out to whatever it takes so saturate the BDI.
> 
> If we don't want a blanket increase, 

The thing is, this sysctl seems an utter cop out, we can't even explain
how to calculate a number that'll work for a situation, the best we can
do is say, prod at it and pray -- that's not good.

Last time I also asked if an increased number is good for every
situation, I have a machine with a RAID5 array and USB storage, will it
harm either situation?

> I'd suggest that we just give the
> FS a way to say: 'I know nr_to_write is only 32, but if you just write a
> few blocks more, the system will be better off'.
> 
> Something like wbc->fs_write_hint
> 
> This way, when the FS allocates a great big contiguous delalloc extent,
> it can set the wbc to reflect that we've got cheap and easy IO here.

I think that's certainly a possibility.

What's the down-side of allocating extents based on the available dirty
pages instead of the current write-out request? As long as we're good at
generating sequential IO in general (yeah, I know we suck now) it
doesn't really matter when it will be filled, as we know it will
eventually be.