From: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>
To: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
Cc: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christian Ehrhardt <ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
"Wu, Fengguang" <fengguang.wu@intel.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] writeback: Record if the congestion was unnecessary
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 10:12:10 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1282875130.17594.2.camel@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100826203130.GL20944@csn.ul.ie>
On Fri, 2010-08-27 at 04:31 +0800, Mel Gorman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 08:29:04PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 04:14:15PM +0100, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > If congestion_wait() is called when there is no congestion, the caller
> > > will wait for the full timeout. This can cause unreasonable and
> > > unnecessary stalls. There are a number of potential modifications that
> > > could be made to wake sleepers but this patch measures how serious the
> > > problem is. It keeps count of how many congested BDIs there are. If
> > > congestion_wait() is called with no BDIs congested, the tracepoint will
> > > record that the wait was unnecessary.
> >
> > I am not convinced that unnecessary is the right word. On a workload
> > without any IO (i.e. no congestion_wait() necessary, ever), I noticed
> > the VM regressing both in time and in reclaiming the right pages when
> > simply removing congestion_wait() from the direct reclaim paths (the
> > one in __alloc_pages_slowpath and the other one in
> > do_try_to_free_pages).
> >
> > So just being stupid and waiting for the timeout in direct reclaim
> > while kswapd can make progress seemed to do a better job for that
> > load.
> >
> > I can not exactly pinpoint the reason for that behaviour, it would be
> > nice if somebody had an idea.
> >
>
> There is a possibility that the behaviour in that case was due to flusher
> threads doing the writes rather than direct reclaim queueing pages for IO
> in an inefficient manner. So the stall is stupid but happens to work out
> well because flusher threads get the chance to do work.
If this is the case, we already have queue congested. removing
congestion_wait() might cause regression but either your change or the
congestion_wait_check() should not have the regression, as we do check
if the bdi is congested.
Thanks,
Shaohua
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-08-27 2:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 38+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-08-26 15:14 [RFC PATCH 0/3] Do not wait the full timeout on congestion_wait when there is no congestion Mel Gorman
2010-08-26 15:14 ` [PATCH 1/3] writeback: Account for time spent congestion_waited Mel Gorman
2010-08-26 17:23 ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-26 18:10 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-08-26 15:14 ` [PATCH 2/3] writeback: Record if the congestion was unnecessary Mel Gorman
2010-08-26 17:35 ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-26 17:41 ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-26 18:29 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-08-26 20:31 ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-27 2:12 ` Shaohua Li [this message]
2010-08-27 9:20 ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-27 8:16 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-08-27 9:24 ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-30 13:19 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-08-31 15:02 ` Mel Gorman
2010-09-02 15:49 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-09-02 18:28 ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-29 16:03 ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-26 15:14 ` [PATCH 3/3] writeback: Do not congestion sleep when there are no congested BDIs Mel Gorman
2010-08-26 17:38 ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-26 17:42 ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-26 18:17 ` Johannes Weiner
2010-08-26 20:23 ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-27 1:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-27 9:34 ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-27 1:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-27 9:37 ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-27 5:13 ` Dave Chinner
2010-08-27 9:33 ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-26 17:20 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] Do not wait the full timeout on congestion_wait when there is no congestion Minchan Kim
2010-08-26 17:31 ` Mel Gorman
2010-08-26 17:50 ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-27 1:21 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-27 1:41 ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-27 1:50 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-27 2:02 ` Minchan Kim
2010-08-27 4:34 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-08-27 9:38 ` Mel Gorman
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=1282875130.17594.2.camel@sli10-conroe.sh.intel.com \
--to=shaohua.li@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=ehrhardt@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mel@csn.ul.ie \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).