Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] writeback: balance_dirty_pages() shall write more than dirtied pages

[Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>]

On Thu, 2009-09-10 at 21:21 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 08:57:42PM +0800, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 09:42:01AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 09, 2009 at 11:44:13PM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Wed 09-09-09 22:51:48, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > > Some filesystem may choose to write much more than ratelimit_pages
> > > > > before calling balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(). So it is safer to
> > > > > determine number to write based on real number of dirtied pages.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The increased write_chunk may make the dirtier more bumpy.  This is
> > > > > filesystem writers' duty not to dirty too much at a time without
> > > > > checking the ratelimit.
> > > >   I don't get this. balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr() is called when we
> > > > dirty the page, not when we write it out. So a problem would only happen if
> > > > filesystem dirties pages by set_page_dirty() and won't call
> > > > balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(). But e.g. generic_perform_write()
> > > > and do_wp_page() takes care of that. So where's the problem?
> > > 
> > > It seems that btrfs_file_write() is writing in chunks of up to 1024-pages
> > > (1024 is the computed nrptrs value in a 32bit kernel). And it calls
> > > balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr() each time it dirtied such a chunk.
> > 
> > I can easily change this to call more often, but we do always call
> > balance_dirty_pages to reflect how much ram we've really sent down.
> 
> Btrfs is doing OK. 2MB/4MB looks like reasonable chunk sizes. The
> need-change part is balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(), hence this
> patch :)

I'm not getting it, it calls set_page_dirty() for each page, right? and
then it calls into balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(), that sounds
right. What is the problem with that?