All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Cc: <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 06/13] writeback: bdi write bandwidth estimation
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:58:27 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101117035906.117752481@intel.com> (raw)

Andrew,
References: <20101117035821.000579293@intel.com>
Content-Disposition: inline; filename=writeback-bandwidth-estimation-in-flusher.patch

The estimation value will start from 100MB/s and adapt to the real
bandwidth in seconds.  It's pretty accurate for common filesystems.

As the first use case, it replaces the fixed 100MB/s value used for
throttle bandwidth calculation in balance_dirty_pages().

The overheads won't be high because the bdi bandwidth udpate only occurs
in >10ms intervals.

Initially it's only estimated in balance_dirty_pages() because this is
the most reliable place to get reasonable large bandwidth -- the bdi is
normally fully utilized when bdi_thresh is reached.

Then Shaohua recommends to also do it in the flusher thread, to keep the
value updated when there are only periodic/background writeback and no
tasks throttled.

The estimation cannot be done purely in the flusher thread because it's
not sufficient for NFS. NFS writeback won't block at get_request_wait(),
so tend to complete quickly. Another problem is, slow devices may take
dozens of seconds to write the initial 64MB chunk (write_bandwidth
starts with 100MB/s, this translates to 64MB nr_to_write). So it may
take more than 1 minute to adapt to the smallish bandwidth if the
bandwidth is only updated in the flusher thread.

CC: Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
---
 fs/fs-writeback.c           |    5 ++++
 include/linux/backing-dev.h |    2 +
 include/linux/writeback.h   |    3 ++
 mm/backing-dev.c            |    1 
 mm/page-writeback.c         |   41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 5 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- linux-next.orig/include/linux/backing-dev.h	2010-11-15 21:51:38.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/include/linux/backing-dev.h	2010-11-15 21:51:41.000000000 +0800
@@ -75,6 +75,8 @@ struct backing_dev_info {
 	struct percpu_counter bdi_stat[NR_BDI_STAT_ITEMS];
 
 	struct prop_local_percpu completions;
+	unsigned long write_bandwidth_update_time;
+	int write_bandwidth;
 	int dirty_exceeded;
 
 	unsigned int min_ratio;
--- linux-next.orig/mm/backing-dev.c	2010-11-15 21:51:38.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/mm/backing-dev.c	2010-11-15 21:51:41.000000000 +0800
@@ -660,6 +660,7 @@ int bdi_init(struct backing_dev_info *bd
 			goto err;
 	}
 
+	bdi->write_bandwidth = 100 << 20;
 	bdi->dirty_exceeded = 0;
 	err = prop_local_init_percpu(&bdi->completions);
 
--- linux-next.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c	2010-11-15 21:43:51.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/fs/fs-writeback.c	2010-11-15 21:51:41.000000000 +0800
@@ -635,6 +635,8 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ
 		.range_cyclic		= work->range_cyclic,
 	};
 	unsigned long oldest_jif;
+	unsigned long bw_time;
+	s64 bw_written = 0;
 	long wrote = 0;
 	long write_chunk;
 	struct inode *inode;
@@ -668,6 +670,8 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ
 		write_chunk = LONG_MAX;
 
 	wbc.wb_start = jiffies; /* livelock avoidance */
+	bdi_update_write_bandwidth(wb->bdi, &bw_time, &bw_written);
+
 	for (;;) {
 		/*
 		 * Stop writeback when nr_pages has been consumed
@@ -702,6 +706,7 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ
 		else
 			writeback_inodes_wb(wb, &wbc);
 		trace_wbc_writeback_written(&wbc, wb->bdi);
+		bdi_update_write_bandwidth(wb->bdi, &bw_time, &bw_written);
 
 		work->nr_pages -= write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
 		wrote += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
--- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c	2010-11-15 21:51:38.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c	2010-11-15 21:51:41.000000000 +0800
@@ -479,6 +479,41 @@ out:
 	return 1 + int_sqrt(dirty_thresh - dirty_pages);
 }
 
+void bdi_update_write_bandwidth(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
+				unsigned long *bw_time,
+				s64 *bw_written)
+{
+	unsigned long written;
+	unsigned long elapsed;
+	unsigned long bw;
+	unsigned long w;
+
+	if (*bw_written == 0)
+		goto snapshot;
+
+	elapsed = jiffies - *bw_time;
+	if (elapsed < HZ/100)
+		return;
+
+	/*
+	 * When there lots of tasks throttled in balance_dirty_pages(), they
+	 * will each try to update the bandwidth for the same period, making
+	 * the bandwidth drift much faster than the desired rate (as in the
+	 * single dirtier case). So do some rate limiting.
+	 */
+	if (jiffies - bdi->write_bandwidth_update_time < elapsed)
+		goto snapshot;
+
+	written = percpu_counter_read(&bdi->bdi_stat[BDI_WRITTEN]) - *bw_written;
+	bw = (HZ * PAGE_CACHE_SIZE * written + elapsed/2) / elapsed;
+	w = min(elapsed / (HZ/100), 128UL);
+	bdi->write_bandwidth = (bdi->write_bandwidth * (1024-w) + bw * w) >> 10;
+	bdi->write_bandwidth_update_time = jiffies;
+snapshot:
+	*bw_written = percpu_counter_read(&bdi->bdi_stat[BDI_WRITTEN]);
+	*bw_time = jiffies;
+}
+
 /*
  * balance_dirty_pages() must be called by processes which are generating dirty
  * data.  It looks at the number of dirty pages in the machine and will force
@@ -498,6 +533,8 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
 	unsigned long pause = 0;
 	bool dirty_exceeded = false;
 	struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info;
+	unsigned long bw_time;
+	s64 bw_written = 0;
 
 	for (;;) {
 		/*
@@ -546,7 +583,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
 			goto pause;
 		}
 
-		bw = 100 << 20; /* use static 100MB/s for the moment */
+		bw = bdi->write_bandwidth;
 
 		bw = bw * (bdi_thresh - bdi_dirty);
 		bw = bw / (bdi_thresh / TASK_SOFT_DIRTY_LIMIT + 1);
@@ -555,8 +592,10 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
 		pause = clamp_val(pause, 1, HZ/10);
 
 pause:
+		bdi_update_write_bandwidth(bdi, &bw_time, &bw_written);
 		__set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
 		io_schedule_timeout(pause);
+		bdi_update_write_bandwidth(bdi, &bw_time, &bw_written);
 
 		/*
 		 * The bdi thresh is somehow "soft" limit derived from the
--- linux-next.orig/include/linux/writeback.h	2010-11-15 21:43:51.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/include/linux/writeback.h	2010-11-15 21:51:41.000000000 +0800
@@ -137,6 +137,9 @@ int dirty_writeback_centisecs_handler(st
 void global_dirty_limits(unsigned long *pbackground, unsigned long *pdirty);
 unsigned long bdi_dirty_limit(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
 			       unsigned long dirty);
+void bdi_update_write_bandwidth(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
+				unsigned long *bw_time,
+				s64 *bw_written);
 
 void page_writeback_init(void);
 void balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(struct address_space *mapping,



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Cc: <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 06/13] writeback: bdi write bandwidth estimation
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:58:27 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101117035906.117752481@intel.com> (raw)

Andrew,
References: <20101117035821.000579293@intel.com>
Content-Disposition: inline; filename=writeback-bandwidth-estimation-in-flusher.patch

The estimation value will start from 100MB/s and adapt to the real
bandwidth in seconds.  It's pretty accurate for common filesystems.

As the first use case, it replaces the fixed 100MB/s value used for
throttle bandwidth calculation in balance_dirty_pages().

The overheads won't be high because the bdi bandwidth udpate only occurs
in >10ms intervals.

Initially it's only estimated in balance_dirty_pages() because this is
the most reliable place to get reasonable large bandwidth -- the bdi is
normally fully utilized when bdi_thresh is reached.

Then Shaohua recommends to also do it in the flusher thread, to keep the
value updated when there are only periodic/background writeback and no
tasks throttled.

The estimation cannot be done purely in the flusher thread because it's
not sufficient for NFS. NFS writeback won't block at get_request_wait(),
so tend to complete quickly. Another problem is, slow devices may take
dozens of seconds to write the initial 64MB chunk (write_bandwidth
starts with 100MB/s, this translates to 64MB nr_to_write). So it may
take more than 1 minute to adapt to the smallish bandwidth if the
bandwidth is only updated in the flusher thread.

CC: Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
---
 fs/fs-writeback.c           |    5 ++++
 include/linux/backing-dev.h |    2 +
 include/linux/writeback.h   |    3 ++
 mm/backing-dev.c            |    1 
 mm/page-writeback.c         |   41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 5 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- linux-next.orig/include/linux/backing-dev.h	2010-11-15 21:51:38.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/include/linux/backing-dev.h	2010-11-15 21:51:41.000000000 +0800
@@ -75,6 +75,8 @@ struct backing_dev_info {
 	struct percpu_counter bdi_stat[NR_BDI_STAT_ITEMS];
 
 	struct prop_local_percpu completions;
+	unsigned long write_bandwidth_update_time;
+	int write_bandwidth;
 	int dirty_exceeded;
 
 	unsigned int min_ratio;
--- linux-next.orig/mm/backing-dev.c	2010-11-15 21:51:38.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/mm/backing-dev.c	2010-11-15 21:51:41.000000000 +0800
@@ -660,6 +660,7 @@ int bdi_init(struct backing_dev_info *bd
 			goto err;
 	}
 
+	bdi->write_bandwidth = 100 << 20;
 	bdi->dirty_exceeded = 0;
 	err = prop_local_init_percpu(&bdi->completions);
 
--- linux-next.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c	2010-11-15 21:43:51.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/fs/fs-writeback.c	2010-11-15 21:51:41.000000000 +0800
@@ -635,6 +635,8 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ
 		.range_cyclic		= work->range_cyclic,
 	};
 	unsigned long oldest_jif;
+	unsigned long bw_time;
+	s64 bw_written = 0;
 	long wrote = 0;
 	long write_chunk;
 	struct inode *inode;
@@ -668,6 +670,8 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ
 		write_chunk = LONG_MAX;
 
 	wbc.wb_start = jiffies; /* livelock avoidance */
+	bdi_update_write_bandwidth(wb->bdi, &bw_time, &bw_written);
+
 	for (;;) {
 		/*
 		 * Stop writeback when nr_pages has been consumed
@@ -702,6 +706,7 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ
 		else
 			writeback_inodes_wb(wb, &wbc);
 		trace_wbc_writeback_written(&wbc, wb->bdi);
+		bdi_update_write_bandwidth(wb->bdi, &bw_time, &bw_written);
 
 		work->nr_pages -= write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
 		wrote += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
--- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c	2010-11-15 21:51:38.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c	2010-11-15 21:51:41.000000000 +0800
@@ -479,6 +479,41 @@ out:
 	return 1 + int_sqrt(dirty_thresh - dirty_pages);
 }
 
+void bdi_update_write_bandwidth(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
+				unsigned long *bw_time,
+				s64 *bw_written)
+{
+	unsigned long written;
+	unsigned long elapsed;
+	unsigned long bw;
+	unsigned long w;
+
+	if (*bw_written == 0)
+		goto snapshot;
+
+	elapsed = jiffies - *bw_time;
+	if (elapsed < HZ/100)
+		return;
+
+	/*
+	 * When there lots of tasks throttled in balance_dirty_pages(), they
+	 * will each try to update the bandwidth for the same period, making
+	 * the bandwidth drift much faster than the desired rate (as in the
+	 * single dirtier case). So do some rate limiting.
+	 */
+	if (jiffies - bdi->write_bandwidth_update_time < elapsed)
+		goto snapshot;
+
+	written = percpu_counter_read(&bdi->bdi_stat[BDI_WRITTEN]) - *bw_written;
+	bw = (HZ * PAGE_CACHE_SIZE * written + elapsed/2) / elapsed;
+	w = min(elapsed / (HZ/100), 128UL);
+	bdi->write_bandwidth = (bdi->write_bandwidth * (1024-w) + bw * w) >> 10;
+	bdi->write_bandwidth_update_time = jiffies;
+snapshot:
+	*bw_written = percpu_counter_read(&bdi->bdi_stat[BDI_WRITTEN]);
+	*bw_time = jiffies;
+}
+
 /*
  * balance_dirty_pages() must be called by processes which are generating dirty
  * data.  It looks at the number of dirty pages in the machine and will force
@@ -498,6 +533,8 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
 	unsigned long pause = 0;
 	bool dirty_exceeded = false;
 	struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info;
+	unsigned long bw_time;
+	s64 bw_written = 0;
 
 	for (;;) {
 		/*
@@ -546,7 +583,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
 			goto pause;
 		}
 
-		bw = 100 << 20; /* use static 100MB/s for the moment */
+		bw = bdi->write_bandwidth;
 
 		bw = bw * (bdi_thresh - bdi_dirty);
 		bw = bw / (bdi_thresh / TASK_SOFT_DIRTY_LIMIT + 1);
@@ -555,8 +592,10 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
 		pause = clamp_val(pause, 1, HZ/10);
 
 pause:
+		bdi_update_write_bandwidth(bdi, &bw_time, &bw_written);
 		__set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
 		io_schedule_timeout(pause);
+		bdi_update_write_bandwidth(bdi, &bw_time, &bw_written);
 
 		/*
 		 * The bdi thresh is somehow "soft" limit derived from the
--- linux-next.orig/include/linux/writeback.h	2010-11-15 21:43:51.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/include/linux/writeback.h	2010-11-15 21:51:41.000000000 +0800
@@ -137,6 +137,9 @@ int dirty_writeback_centisecs_handler(st
 void global_dirty_limits(unsigned long *pbackground, unsigned long *pdirty);
 unsigned long bdi_dirty_limit(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
 			       unsigned long dirty);
+void bdi_update_write_bandwidth(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
+				unsigned long *bw_time,
+				s64 *bw_written);
 
 void page_writeback_init(void);
 void balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(struct address_space *mapping,


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH 06/13] writeback: bdi write bandwidth estimation
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:58:27 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101117035906.117752481@intel.com> (raw)

Andrew,
References: <20101117035821.000579293@intel.com>
Content-Disposition: inline; filename=writeback-bandwidth-estimation-in-flusher.patch

The estimation value will start from 100MB/s and adapt to the real
bandwidth in seconds.  It's pretty accurate for common filesystems.

As the first use case, it replaces the fixed 100MB/s value used for
throttle bandwidth calculation in balance_dirty_pages().

The overheads won't be high because the bdi bandwidth udpate only occurs
in >10ms intervals.

Initially it's only estimated in balance_dirty_pages() because this is
the most reliable place to get reasonable large bandwidth -- the bdi is
normally fully utilized when bdi_thresh is reached.

Then Shaohua recommends to also do it in the flusher thread, to keep the
value updated when there are only periodic/background writeback and no
tasks throttled.

The estimation cannot be done purely in the flusher thread because it's
not sufficient for NFS. NFS writeback won't block at get_request_wait(),
so tend to complete quickly. Another problem is, slow devices may take
dozens of seconds to write the initial 64MB chunk (write_bandwidth
starts with 100MB/s, this translates to 64MB nr_to_write). So it may
take more than 1 minute to adapt to the smallish bandwidth if the
bandwidth is only updated in the flusher thread.

CC: Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
---
 fs/fs-writeback.c           |    5 ++++
 include/linux/backing-dev.h |    2 +
 include/linux/writeback.h   |    3 ++
 mm/backing-dev.c            |    1 
 mm/page-writeback.c         |   41 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 5 files changed, 51 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

--- linux-next.orig/include/linux/backing-dev.h	2010-11-15 21:51:38.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/include/linux/backing-dev.h	2010-11-15 21:51:41.000000000 +0800
@@ -75,6 +75,8 @@ struct backing_dev_info {
 	struct percpu_counter bdi_stat[NR_BDI_STAT_ITEMS];
 
 	struct prop_local_percpu completions;
+	unsigned long write_bandwidth_update_time;
+	int write_bandwidth;
 	int dirty_exceeded;
 
 	unsigned int min_ratio;
--- linux-next.orig/mm/backing-dev.c	2010-11-15 21:51:38.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/mm/backing-dev.c	2010-11-15 21:51:41.000000000 +0800
@@ -660,6 +660,7 @@ int bdi_init(struct backing_dev_info *bd
 			goto err;
 	}
 
+	bdi->write_bandwidth = 100 << 20;
 	bdi->dirty_exceeded = 0;
 	err = prop_local_init_percpu(&bdi->completions);
 
--- linux-next.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c	2010-11-15 21:43:51.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/fs/fs-writeback.c	2010-11-15 21:51:41.000000000 +0800
@@ -635,6 +635,8 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ
 		.range_cyclic		= work->range_cyclic,
 	};
 	unsigned long oldest_jif;
+	unsigned long bw_time;
+	s64 bw_written = 0;
 	long wrote = 0;
 	long write_chunk;
 	struct inode *inode;
@@ -668,6 +670,8 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ
 		write_chunk = LONG_MAX;
 
 	wbc.wb_start = jiffies; /* livelock avoidance */
+	bdi_update_write_bandwidth(wb->bdi, &bw_time, &bw_written);
+
 	for (;;) {
 		/*
 		 * Stop writeback when nr_pages has been consumed
@@ -702,6 +706,7 @@ static long wb_writeback(struct bdi_writ
 		else
 			writeback_inodes_wb(wb, &wbc);
 		trace_wbc_writeback_written(&wbc, wb->bdi);
+		bdi_update_write_bandwidth(wb->bdi, &bw_time, &bw_written);
 
 		work->nr_pages -= write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
 		wrote += write_chunk - wbc.nr_to_write;
--- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c	2010-11-15 21:51:38.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c	2010-11-15 21:51:41.000000000 +0800
@@ -479,6 +479,41 @@ out:
 	return 1 + int_sqrt(dirty_thresh - dirty_pages);
 }
 
+void bdi_update_write_bandwidth(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
+				unsigned long *bw_time,
+				s64 *bw_written)
+{
+	unsigned long written;
+	unsigned long elapsed;
+	unsigned long bw;
+	unsigned long w;
+
+	if (*bw_written == 0)
+		goto snapshot;
+
+	elapsed = jiffies - *bw_time;
+	if (elapsed < HZ/100)
+		return;
+
+	/*
+	 * When there lots of tasks throttled in balance_dirty_pages(), they
+	 * will each try to update the bandwidth for the same period, making
+	 * the bandwidth drift much faster than the desired rate (as in the
+	 * single dirtier case). So do some rate limiting.
+	 */
+	if (jiffies - bdi->write_bandwidth_update_time < elapsed)
+		goto snapshot;
+
+	written = percpu_counter_read(&bdi->bdi_stat[BDI_WRITTEN]) - *bw_written;
+	bw = (HZ * PAGE_CACHE_SIZE * written + elapsed/2) / elapsed;
+	w = min(elapsed / (HZ/100), 128UL);
+	bdi->write_bandwidth = (bdi->write_bandwidth * (1024-w) + bw * w) >> 10;
+	bdi->write_bandwidth_update_time = jiffies;
+snapshot:
+	*bw_written = percpu_counter_read(&bdi->bdi_stat[BDI_WRITTEN]);
+	*bw_time = jiffies;
+}
+
 /*
  * balance_dirty_pages() must be called by processes which are generating dirty
  * data.  It looks at the number of dirty pages in the machine and will force
@@ -498,6 +533,8 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
 	unsigned long pause = 0;
 	bool dirty_exceeded = false;
 	struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info;
+	unsigned long bw_time;
+	s64 bw_written = 0;
 
 	for (;;) {
 		/*
@@ -546,7 +583,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
 			goto pause;
 		}
 
-		bw = 100 << 20; /* use static 100MB/s for the moment */
+		bw = bdi->write_bandwidth;
 
 		bw = bw * (bdi_thresh - bdi_dirty);
 		bw = bw / (bdi_thresh / TASK_SOFT_DIRTY_LIMIT + 1);
@@ -555,8 +592,10 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
 		pause = clamp_val(pause, 1, HZ/10);
 
 pause:
+		bdi_update_write_bandwidth(bdi, &bw_time, &bw_written);
 		__set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
 		io_schedule_timeout(pause);
+		bdi_update_write_bandwidth(bdi, &bw_time, &bw_written);
 
 		/*
 		 * The bdi thresh is somehow "soft" limit derived from the
--- linux-next.orig/include/linux/writeback.h	2010-11-15 21:43:51.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/include/linux/writeback.h	2010-11-15 21:51:41.000000000 +0800
@@ -137,6 +137,9 @@ int dirty_writeback_centisecs_handler(st
 void global_dirty_limits(unsigned long *pbackground, unsigned long *pdirty);
 unsigned long bdi_dirty_limit(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
 			       unsigned long dirty);
+void bdi_update_write_bandwidth(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
+				unsigned long *bw_time,
+				s64 *bw_written);
 
 void page_writeback_init(void);
 void balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr(struct address_space *mapping,


--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

             reply	other threads:[~2010-11-17  4:08 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-11-17  3:58 Wu Fengguang [this message]
2010-11-17  3:58 ` [PATCH 06/13] writeback: bdi write bandwidth estimation Wu Fengguang
2010-11-17  3:58 ` Wu Fengguang
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-11-17  4:27 [PATCH 00/13] IO-less dirty throttling v2 Wu Fengguang
2010-11-17  4:27 ` [PATCH 06/13] writeback: bdi write bandwidth estimation Wu Fengguang
2010-11-17  4:27   ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-17  4:27   ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-17 23:08   ` Andrew Morton
2010-11-17 23:08     ` Andrew Morton
2010-11-17 23:08     ` Andrew Morton
2010-11-17 23:24     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-17 23:24       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-17 23:38       ` Andrew Morton
2010-11-17 23:38         ` Andrew Morton
2010-11-17 23:43         ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-17 23:43           ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-18  6:51     ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-18  6:51       ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-24 10:58   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-24 10:58     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-24 14:06     ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-24 14:06       ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-24 11:05   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-24 11:05     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-24 12:10     ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-24 12:10       ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-24 12:50       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-24 12:50         ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-24 13:14         ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-24 13:14           ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-24 13:20           ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-24 13:20             ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-24 13:42             ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-24 13:42               ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-24 13:46               ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-24 13:46                 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-24 14:12                 ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-24 14:12                   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-24 14:21                   ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-24 14:21                     ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-24 14:31                     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-24 14:31                       ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-11-24 14:38                       ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-24 14:38                         ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-24 14:34                   ` Wu Fengguang
2010-11-24 14:34                     ` Wu Fengguang

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20101117035906.117752481@intel.com \
    --to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.