From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@gmail.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 7/7] writeback: balance_dirty_pages() shall write more than dirtied pages
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 23:14:58 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090910151458.GA10767@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1252594564.7205.36.camel@laptop>
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 10:56:04PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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?
It looks like btrfs_file_write() eventually calls
__set_page_dirty_buffers() which in turn won't call
balance_dirty_pages*(). This is why do_wp_page() calls
set_page_dirty_balance() to do balance_dirty_pages*().
So btrfs_file_write() explicitly calls
balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_nr() to get throttled.
Thanks,
Fengguang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-09-10 15:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20090909145141.293229693@intel.com>
[not found] ` <20090909150601.159061863@intel.com>
2009-09-09 15:44 ` [RFC][PATCH 7/7] writeback: balance_dirty_pages() shall write more than dirtied pages Jan Kara
2009-09-10 1:42 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-10 12:57 ` Chris Mason
2009-09-10 13:21 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-10 14:56 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-10 15:14 ` Wu Fengguang [this message]
2009-09-10 15:31 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-10 15:41 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-10 15:54 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-10 16:08 ` Wu Fengguang
[not found] ` <20090909150600.330539880@intel.com>
2009-09-09 15:45 ` [RFC][PATCH 1/7] writeback: cleanup writeback_single_inode() Jan Kara
[not found] ` <20090909150600.451373732@intel.com>
2009-09-09 15:53 ` [RFC][PATCH 2/7] writeback: fix queue_io() ordering Jan Kara
2009-09-10 1:26 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-10 14:14 ` Jan Kara
2009-09-10 14:17 ` Wu Fengguang
[not found] ` <20090909150600.874037375@intel.com>
2009-09-09 23:29 ` [RFC][PATCH 5/7] writeback: use 64MB MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES Theodore Tso
2009-09-10 0:13 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-10 4:53 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-10 7:35 ` 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=20090910151458.GA10767@localhost \
--to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=dedekind1@gmail.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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).