From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] writeback: bdi write bandwidth estimation
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 14:32:52 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110701183252.GC28563@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110629145553.906668553@intel.com>
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 10:52:48PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> The estimation value will start from 100MB/s and adapt to the real
> bandwidth in seconds.
>
> It tries to update the bandwidth only when disk is fully utilized.
> Any inactive period of more than one second will be skipped.
>
> The estimated bandwidth will be reflecting how fast the device can
> writeout when _fully utilized_, and won't drop to 0 when it goes idle.
> The value will remain constant at disk idle time. At busy write time, if
> not considering fluctuations, it will also remain high unless be knocked
> down by possible concurrent reads that compete for the disk time and
> bandwidth with async writes.
>
> The estimation is not done purely in the flusher because there is no
> guarantee for write_cache_pages() to return timely to update bandwidth.
>
> The bdi->avg_write_bandwidth smoothing is very effective for filtering
> out sudden spikes, however may be a little biased in long term.
>
> The overheads are low because the bdi bandwidth update only occurs at
> 200ms intervals.
>
> The 200ms update interval is suitable, becuase it's not possible to get
> the real bandwidth for the instance at all, due to large fluctuations.
>
> The NFS commits can be as large as seconds worth of data. One XFS
> completion may be as large as half second worth of data if we are going
> to increase the write chunk to half second worth of data. In ext4,
> fluctuations with time period of around 5 seconds is observed. And there
> is another pattern of irregular periods of up to 20 seconds on SSD tests.
>
> That's why we are not only doing the estimation at 200ms intervals, but
> also averaging them over a period of 3 seconds and then go further to do
> another level of smoothing in avg_write_bandwidth.
What IO scheduler have you used for testing? CFQ now a days almost chokes
async requests in presence of lots of sync IO. Have you done some testing
with that scenario and see how quickly you adjust to that change.
/me is trying to wrap his head around all the smoothing and bandwidth
calculation functions. Wished there was more explanation to it.
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-07-01 18:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-29 14:52 [PATCH 0/9] write bandwidth estimation and writeback fixes v2 Wu Fengguang
2011-06-29 14:52 ` [PATCH 1/9] writeback: make writeback_control.nr_to_write straight Wu Fengguang
2011-06-30 16:24 ` Jan Kara
2011-07-01 12:03 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-06-29 14:52 ` [PATCH 2/9] writeback: account per-bdi accumulated written pages Wu Fengguang
2011-06-29 14:52 ` [PATCH 3/9] writeback: bdi write bandwidth estimation Wu Fengguang
2011-06-30 19:56 ` Jan Kara
2011-07-01 14:58 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-07-04 3:05 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-07-13 23:30 ` Jan Kara
2011-07-23 7:26 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-07-01 15:20 ` Andrea Righi
2011-07-08 11:53 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-07-01 18:32 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2011-07-23 8:02 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-07-01 19:19 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-07-01 19:29 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-07-23 8:07 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-06-29 14:52 ` [PATCH 4/9] writeback: show bdi write bandwidth in debugfs Wu Fengguang
2011-06-29 14:52 ` [PATCH 5/9] writeback: consolidate variable names in balance_dirty_pages() Wu Fengguang
2011-06-30 17:26 ` Jan Kara
2011-06-29 14:52 ` [PATCH 6/9] writeback: introduce smoothed global dirty limit Wu Fengguang
2011-07-01 15:20 ` Andrea Righi
2011-07-08 11:51 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-06-29 14:52 ` [PATCH 7/9] writeback: introduce max-pause and pass-good dirty limits Wu Fengguang
2011-06-29 14:52 ` [PATCH 8/9] writeback: scale IO chunk size up to half device bandwidth Wu Fengguang
2011-06-29 14:52 ` [PATCH 9/9] writeback: trace global_dirty_state Wu Fengguang
2011-07-01 15:18 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-07-01 15:45 ` 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=20110701183252.GC28563@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shaohua.li@intel.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 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).