All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
	Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:00:37 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110819190037.GJ18656@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110819025406.GA13365@localhost>

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:54:06AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> Hi Vivek,
> 
> > > +		base_rate = bdi->dirty_ratelimit;
> > > +		pos_ratio = bdi_position_ratio(bdi, dirty_thresh,
> > > +					       background_thresh, nr_dirty,
> > > +					       bdi_thresh, bdi_dirty);
> > > +		if (unlikely(pos_ratio == 0)) {
> > > +			pause = MAX_PAUSE;
> > > +			goto pause;
> > >  		}
> > > +		task_ratelimit = (u64)base_rate *
> > > +					pos_ratio >> RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT;
> > 
> > Hi Fenguaang,
> > 
> > I am little confused here. I see that you have already taken pos_ratio
> > into account in bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit() and wondering why to take
> > that into account again in balance_diry_pages().
> > 
> > We calculated the pos_rate and balanced_rate and adjusted the
> > bdi->dirty_ratelimit accordingly in bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit().
> 
> Good question. There are some inter-dependencies in the calculation,
> and the dependency chain is the opposite to the one in your mind:
> balance_dirty_pages() used pos_ratio in the first place, so that
> bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit() have to use pos_ratio in the calculation
> of the balanced dirty rate, too.
> 
> Let's return to how the balanced dirty rate is estimated. Please pay
> special attention to the last paragraphs below the "......" line.
> 
> Start by throttling each dd task at rate
> 
>         task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0                               (1)
>                          (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
>                    == N * task_ratelimit_0                              (2)
> Or     
>         task_ratelimit_0 = dirty_rate / N                               (3)
> 
> Now we conclude that the balanced task ratelimit can be estimated by
> 
>         balanced_rate = task_ratelimit_0 * (write_bw / dirty_rate)      (4)
> 
> Because with (2) and (3), (4) yields the desired equality (1):
> 
>         balanced_rate == (dirty_rate / N) * (write_bw / dirty_rate)
>                       == write_bw / N

Hi Fengguang,

Following is my understanding. Please correct me where I got it wrong.

Ok, I think I follow till this point. I think what you are saying is
that following is our goal in a stable system.

	task_ratelimit = write_bw/N				(6)

So we measure the write_bw of a bdi over a period of time and use that
as feedback loop to modify bdi->dirty_ratelimit which inturn modifies
task_ratelimit and hence we achieve the balance. So we will start with
some arbitrary task limit say task_ratelimit_0, and modify that limit
over a period of time based on our feedback loop to achieve a balanced
system. And following seems to be the formula.
					    write_bw
	task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 * ------- 		(7)
					    dirty_rate

Now I also understand that by using (2) and (3), you proved that
how (7) will lead to (6) and that is our deisred goal. 

> 
> .............................................................................
> 
> Now let's revisit (1). Since balance_dirty_pages() chooses to execute
> the ratelimit
> 
>         task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0
>                        = dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio                    (5)
> 

So balance_drity_pages() chose to take into account pos_ratio() also
because for various reason like just taking into account only bandwidth
variation as feedback was not sufficient. So we also took pos_ratio
into account which in-trun is dependent on gloabal dirty pages and per
bdi dirty_pages/rate.

So we refined the formula for calculating a tasks's effective rate
over a period of time to following.
					    write_bw
	task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 * ------- * pos_ratio		(9)
					    dirty_rate

Is my understanding right so far?

> Put (5) into (4), we get the final form used in
> bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit()
> 
>         balanced_rate = (dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio) * (write_bw / dirty_rate)
> 
> So you really need to take (dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio) as a single entity.

Now few questions.

- What is dirty_ratelimit in formula above?

- Is it wrong to understand the issue in following manner.

  bdi->dirty_ratelimit is tracking write bandwidth variation on the bdi
  and effectively tracks write_bw/N.

  bdi->dirty_ratelimit = write_bw/N

  or 

					    		  write_bw
  bdi->dirty_ratelimit = previous_bdi->dirty_ratelimit * -------------    (10)
					     		  dirty_rate

 Hence a tasks's balanced rate from (9) and (10) is.

 task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio		(11)

So my understanding about (10) and (11) is wrong? if no, then question
comes that bdi->dirty_ratelimit is supposed to be keeping track of 
write bandwidth variations only. And in turn task ratelimit will be
driven by both bandwidth varation as well as pos_ratio variation.

But you seem to be doing following.

 bdi->dirty_ratelimit = adjust based on a cobination of bandwidth feedback
		        and pos_ratio feedback. 

 task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio		(12)

So my question is that when task_ratelimit is finally being adjusted 
based on pos_ratio feedback, why bdi->dirty_ratelimit also needs to
take that into account.

I know you have tried explaining it, but sorry, I did not get it. May
be give it another shot in a layman's terms and I might understand it.

Thanks
Vivek

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
	Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 15:00:37 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110819190037.GJ18656@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110819025406.GA13365@localhost>

On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:54:06AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> Hi Vivek,
> 
> > > +		base_rate = bdi->dirty_ratelimit;
> > > +		pos_ratio = bdi_position_ratio(bdi, dirty_thresh,
> > > +					       background_thresh, nr_dirty,
> > > +					       bdi_thresh, bdi_dirty);
> > > +		if (unlikely(pos_ratio == 0)) {
> > > +			pause = MAX_PAUSE;
> > > +			goto pause;
> > >  		}
> > > +		task_ratelimit = (u64)base_rate *
> > > +					pos_ratio >> RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT;
> > 
> > Hi Fenguaang,
> > 
> > I am little confused here. I see that you have already taken pos_ratio
> > into account in bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit() and wondering why to take
> > that into account again in balance_diry_pages().
> > 
> > We calculated the pos_rate and balanced_rate and adjusted the
> > bdi->dirty_ratelimit accordingly in bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit().
> 
> Good question. There are some inter-dependencies in the calculation,
> and the dependency chain is the opposite to the one in your mind:
> balance_dirty_pages() used pos_ratio in the first place, so that
> bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit() have to use pos_ratio in the calculation
> of the balanced dirty rate, too.
> 
> Let's return to how the balanced dirty rate is estimated. Please pay
> special attention to the last paragraphs below the "......" line.
> 
> Start by throttling each dd task at rate
> 
>         task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0                               (1)
>                          (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
>                    == N * task_ratelimit_0                              (2)
> Or     
>         task_ratelimit_0 = dirty_rate / N                               (3)
> 
> Now we conclude that the balanced task ratelimit can be estimated by
> 
>         balanced_rate = task_ratelimit_0 * (write_bw / dirty_rate)      (4)
> 
> Because with (2) and (3), (4) yields the desired equality (1):
> 
>         balanced_rate == (dirty_rate / N) * (write_bw / dirty_rate)
>                       == write_bw / N

Hi Fengguang,

Following is my understanding. Please correct me where I got it wrong.

Ok, I think I follow till this point. I think what you are saying is
that following is our goal in a stable system.

	task_ratelimit = write_bw/N				(6)

So we measure the write_bw of a bdi over a period of time and use that
as feedback loop to modify bdi->dirty_ratelimit which inturn modifies
task_ratelimit and hence we achieve the balance. So we will start with
some arbitrary task limit say task_ratelimit_0, and modify that limit
over a period of time based on our feedback loop to achieve a balanced
system. And following seems to be the formula.
					    write_bw
	task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 * ------- 		(7)
					    dirty_rate

Now I also understand that by using (2) and (3), you proved that
how (7) will lead to (6) and that is our deisred goal. 

> 
> .............................................................................
> 
> Now let's revisit (1). Since balance_dirty_pages() chooses to execute
> the ratelimit
> 
>         task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0
>                        = dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio                    (5)
> 

So balance_drity_pages() chose to take into account pos_ratio() also
because for various reason like just taking into account only bandwidth
variation as feedback was not sufficient. So we also took pos_ratio
into account which in-trun is dependent on gloabal dirty pages and per
bdi dirty_pages/rate.

So we refined the formula for calculating a tasks's effective rate
over a period of time to following.
					    write_bw
	task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 * ------- * pos_ratio		(9)
					    dirty_rate

Is my understanding right so far?

> Put (5) into (4), we get the final form used in
> bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit()
> 
>         balanced_rate = (dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio) * (write_bw / dirty_rate)
> 
> So you really need to take (dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio) as a single entity.

Now few questions.

- What is dirty_ratelimit in formula above?

- Is it wrong to understand the issue in following manner.

  bdi->dirty_ratelimit is tracking write bandwidth variation on the bdi
  and effectively tracks write_bw/N.

  bdi->dirty_ratelimit = write_bw/N

  or 

					    		  write_bw
  bdi->dirty_ratelimit = previous_bdi->dirty_ratelimit * -------------    (10)
					     		  dirty_rate

 Hence a tasks's balanced rate from (9) and (10) is.

 task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio		(11)

So my understanding about (10) and (11) is wrong? if no, then question
comes that bdi->dirty_ratelimit is supposed to be keeping track of 
write bandwidth variations only. And in turn task ratelimit will be
driven by both bandwidth varation as well as pos_ratio variation.

But you seem to be doing following.

 bdi->dirty_ratelimit = adjust based on a cobination of bandwidth feedback
		        and pos_ratio feedback. 

 task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio		(12)

So my question is that when task_ratelimit is finally being adjusted 
based on pos_ratio feedback, why bdi->dirty_ratelimit also needs to
take that into account.

I know you have tried explaining it, but sorry, I did not get it. May
be give it another shot in a layman's terms and I might understand it.

Thanks
Vivek

--
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 internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2011-08-19 19:01 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 81+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-08-16  2:20 [PATCH 0/5] IO-less dirty throttling v9 Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20 ` [PATCH 1/5] writeback: account per-bdi accumulated dirtied pages Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20 ` [PATCH 2/5] writeback: dirty position control Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16 19:41   ` Jan Kara
2011-08-16 19:41     ` Jan Kara
2011-08-17 13:23     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-17 13:49       ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-17 13:49         ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-17 20:24       ` Jan Kara
2011-08-17 20:24         ` Jan Kara
2011-08-18  4:18         ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-18  4:18           ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-18  4:41           ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-18  4:41             ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-18 19:16           ` Jan Kara
2011-08-18 19:16             ` Jan Kara
2011-08-24  3:16         ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-24  3:16           ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-19  2:53   ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-19  2:53     ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-19  3:25     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-19  3:25       ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20 ` [PATCH 3/5] writeback: dirty rate control Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20 ` [PATCH 4/5] writeback: per task dirty rate limit Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  7:17   ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-16  7:17     ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-16  7:22     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  7:22       ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20 ` [PATCH 5/5] writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages() Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-19  2:06   ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-19  2:06     ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-19  2:54     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-19  2:54       ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-19 19:00       ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2011-08-19 19:00         ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-21  3:46         ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-21  3:46           ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-22 17:22           ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-22 17:22             ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-23  1:07             ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-23  1:07               ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-23  3:53               ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-23  3:53                 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-23 13:53               ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-23 13:53                 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-24  3:09                 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-24  3:09                   ` Wu Fengguang
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-08-06  8:44 [PATCH 0/5] IO-less dirty throttling v8 Wu Fengguang
2011-08-06  8:44 ` [PATCH 5/5] writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages() Wu Fengguang
2011-08-06  8:44   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-06  8:44   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-06 14:48   ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-06 14:48     ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-06 14:48     ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-07  6:44     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-07  6:44       ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-07  6:44       ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-06 16:46   ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-06 16:46     ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-07  7:18     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-07  9:50       ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-07  9:50         ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-09 18:15   ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-09 18:15     ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-09 18:41     ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-09 18:41       ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-10  3:22       ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-10  3:22         ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-10  3:26     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-10  3:26       ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-09 19:16   ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-09 19:16     ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-10  4:33     ` 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=20110819190037.GJ18656@redhat.com \
    --to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arighi@develer.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=gthelen@google.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
    /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.