From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Wu Fengguang Subject: [PATCH 12/35] writeback: scale down max throttle bandwidth on concurrent dirtiers Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 22:46:58 +0800 Message-ID: <20101213150327.809762057@intel.com> References: <20101213144646.341970461@intel.com> Cc: Jan Kara , Wu Fengguang To: Andrew Morton Return-path: CC: Christoph Hellwig CC: Trond Myklebust CC: Dave Chinner CC: Theodore Ts'o CC: Chris Mason CC: Peter Zijlstra CC: Mel Gorman CC: Rik van Riel CC: KOSAKI Motohiro CC: Greg Thelen CC: Minchan Kim Cc: linux-mm Cc: Cc: LKML Content-Disposition: inline; filename=writeback-adaptive-throttle-bandwidth.patch Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org This will noticeably reduce the fluctuaions of pause time when there are 100+ concurrent dirtiers. The more parallel dirtiers (1 dirtier => 4 dirtiers), the smaller bandwidth each dirtier will share (bdi_bandwidth => bdi_bandwidth/4), the less gap to the dirty limit ((C-A) => (C-B)), the less stable the pause time will be (given the same fluctuation of bdi_dirty). For example, if A drifts to A', its pause time may drift from 5ms to 6ms, while B to B' may drift from 50ms to 90ms. It's much larger fluctuations in relative ratio as well as absolute time. Fig.1 before patch, gap (C-B) is too low to get smooth pause time throttle_bandwidth_A = bdi_bandwidth .........o | o <= A' | o | o | o | o throttle_bandwidth_B = bdi_bandwidth / 4 .....|...........o | | o <= B' ----------------------------------------------+-----------+---o A B C The solution is to lower the slope of the throttle line accordingly, which makes B stabilize at some point more far away from C. Fig.2 after patch throttle_bandwidth_A = bdi_bandwidth .........o | o <= A' | o | o lowered max throttle bandwidth for B ===> * o | * o throttle_bandwidth_B = bdi_bandwidth / 4 .............* o | | * o ----------------------------------------------+-------+-------o A B C Note that C is actually different points for 1-dirty and 4-dirtiers cases, but for easy graphing, we move them together. Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang --- mm/page-writeback.c | 16 +++++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) --- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-12-13 21:46:14.000000000 +0800 +++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-12-13 21:46:15.000000000 +0800 @@ -587,6 +587,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a unsigned long background_thresh; unsigned long dirty_thresh; unsigned long bdi_thresh; + unsigned long task_thresh; unsigned long long bw; unsigned long period; unsigned long pause = 0; @@ -616,7 +617,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a break; bdi_thresh = bdi_dirty_limit(bdi, dirty_thresh, nr_dirty); - bdi_thresh = task_dirty_limit(current, bdi_thresh); + task_thresh = task_dirty_limit(current, bdi_thresh); /* * In order to avoid the stacked BDI deadlock we need @@ -638,14 +639,23 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a bdi_update_bandwidth(bdi, start_time, bdi_dirty, bdi_thresh); - if (bdi_dirty >= bdi_thresh || nr_dirty > dirty_thresh) { + if (bdi_dirty >= task_thresh || nr_dirty > dirty_thresh) { pause = MAX_PAUSE; goto pause; } + /* + * When bdi_dirty grows closer to bdi_thresh, it indicates more + * concurrent dirtiers. Proportionally lower the max throttle + * bandwidth. This will resist bdi_dirty from approaching to + * close to task_thresh, and help reduce fluctuations of pause + * time when there are lots of dirtiers. + */ bw = bdi->write_bandwidth; - bw = bw * (bdi_thresh - bdi_dirty); + do_div(bw, bdi_thresh / BDI_SOFT_DIRTY_LIMIT + 1); + + bw = bw * (task_thresh - bdi_dirty); do_div(bw, bdi_thresh / TASK_SOFT_DIRTY_LIMIT + 1); period = HZ * pages_dirtied / ((unsigned long)bw + 1) + 1; -- 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: email@kvack.org