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>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-08-19 19:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ 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 ` [PATCH 1/5] writeback: account per-bdi accumulated dirtied pages Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16 2:20 ` [PATCH 2/5] writeback: dirty position control Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16 19:41 ` Jan Kara
2011-08-17 13:23 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-17 13:49 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-17 20:24 ` Jan Kara
2011-08-18 4:18 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-18 4:41 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-18 19:16 ` Jan Kara
2011-08-24 3:16 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-19 2:53 ` Vivek Goyal
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 ` [PATCH 4/5] writeback: per task dirty rate limit Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16 7:17 ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-16 7:22 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16 2:20 ` [PATCH 5/5] writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages() Wu Fengguang
2011-08-19 2:06 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-19 2:54 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-19 19:00 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2011-08-21 3:46 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-22 17:22 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-23 1:07 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-23 3:53 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-23 13:53 ` Vivek Goyal
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 14:48 ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-07 6:44 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-06 16:46 ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-07 7:18 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-07 9:50 ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-09 18:15 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-09 18:41 ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-10 3:22 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-10 3:26 ` Wu Fengguang
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 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).