From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, liwanp@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>,
Vivek Trivedi <t.vivek@samsung.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
Simon Jeons <simon.jeons@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: fix writeback cache thrashing
Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 11:18:17 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130105031817.GA8650@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1356847190-7986-1-git-send-email-linkinjeon@gmail.com>
Hi Namjae,
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 02:59:50PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> From: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>
>
> Consider Process A: huge I/O on sda
> doing heavy write operation - dirty memory becomes more
> than dirty_background_ratio
> on HDD - flusher thread flush-8:0
>
> Consider Process B: small I/O on sdb
> doing while [1]; read 1024K + rewrite 1024K + sleep 2sec
> on Flash device - flusher thread flush-8:16
>
> As Process A is a heavy dirtier, dirty memory becomes more
> than dirty_background_thresh. Due to this, below check becomes
> true(checking global_page_state in over_bground_thresh)
> for all bdi devices(even for very small dirtied bdi - sdb):
>
> In this case, even small cached data on 'sdb' is forced to flush
> and writeback cache thrashing happens.
>
> When we added debug prints inside above 'if' condition and ran
> above Process A(heavy dirtier on bdi with flush-8:0) and
> Process B(1024K frequent read/rewrite on bdi with flush-8:16)
> we got below prints:
>
> [Test setup: ARM dual core CPU, 512 MB RAM]
>
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 56064 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 56704 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 84720 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 94720 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 384 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 960 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 64 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 92160 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 256 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 768 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 64 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 256 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 320 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 0 KB
Yeah, that IO pattern is not good. Perhaps it's 6 small IOs in /one/
second? However that's not quite in line with "sleep 2sec" in your
workload description. Note that I assume flush-8:0 works on a hard
disk, so each flush-8:0 line indicates roughly 1 second interval
elapsed. It would be much more clear if the printk timestamps are
turned on (CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME=y).
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 92032 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 91968 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 192 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 1024 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 64 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 192 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 576 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 0 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 84352 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 192 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 512 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 0 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 92608 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 92544 KB
>
> As mentioned in above log, when global dirty memory > global background_thresh
> small cached data is also forced to flush by flush-8:16.
>
> If removing global background_thresh checking code, we can reduce cache
> thrashing of frequently used small data.
> And It will be great if we can reserve a portion of writeback cache using
> min_ratio.
> After applying patch:
> $ echo 5 > /sys/block/sdb/bdi/min_ratio
> $ cat /sys/block/sdb/bdi/min_ratio
> 5
The below log looks all perfect. However the min_ratio setup is a
problem. If possible, I'd like the final patch being able to work
reasonably well with min_ratio=0 (the system default), too.
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 56064 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 56704 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 84160 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 96960 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 94080 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 93120 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 93120 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 91520 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 89600 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 93696 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 93696 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 72960 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 90624 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 90624 KB
> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 90688 KB
> As mentioned in the above logs, once cache is reserved for Process B,
> and patch is applied there is less writeback cache thrashing on sdb
> by frequent forced writeback by flush-8:16 in over_bground_thresh.
>
> After all, small cached data will be flushed by periodic writeback
> once every dirty_writeback_interval.
>
> Suggested-by: Wanpeng Li <liwanp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Vivek Trivedi <t.vivek@samsung.com>
> Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> ---
> fs/fs-writeback.c | 4 ----
> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> index 310972b..070b773 100644
> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> @@ -756,10 +756,6 @@ static bool over_bground_thresh(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
>
> global_dirty_limits(&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh);
>
> - if (global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> - global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS) > background_thresh)
> - return true;
> -
That global test should be kept in some form (see Jan's proposal).
Because the below per-bdi test can be inaccurate in various ways:
- bdi_stat() may have errors up to bdi_stat_error()
- bdi_dirty_limit() may be arbitrarily shifted by min_ratio etc.
- bdi_dirty_limit() may be totally wrong due to the estimation in
bdi_writeout_fraction() is in its initial value 0, or is still
trying to catch up with sudden workload changes.
> if (bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_RECLAIMABLE) >
> bdi_dirty_limit(bdi, background_thresh))
> return true;
I suspect even removing the global test as in your patch, the above
bdi test will still mostly return true for your described workload,
due to bdi_dirty_limit() returning a value close to 0, because the
writeout fraction of sdb is close to 0.
You cleverly avoided this in your test by raising min_ratio to 5.
However I'd suggest to test with min_ratio=0 and try solutions that
can work well in such default configuration.
Thanks,
Fengguang
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-05 3:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-30 5:59 [PATCH] writeback: fix writeback cache thrashing Namjae Jeon
2012-12-31 11:30 ` Jan Kara
2013-01-01 0:51 ` Wanpeng Li
[not found] ` <20130101005104.GA23383@hacker.(null)>
2013-01-02 13:43 ` Jan Kara
2013-01-03 4:35 ` Namjae Jeon
2013-01-04 0:59 ` Simon Jeons
2013-01-04 7:41 ` Namjae Jeon
2013-01-05 0:46 ` Simon Jeons
2013-01-05 3:26 ` Fengguang Wu
2013-01-05 5:26 ` Simon Jeons
2013-01-05 7:38 ` Fengguang Wu
2013-01-05 9:41 ` Simon Jeons
2013-01-05 9:55 ` Fengguang Wu
2013-01-05 3:18 ` Fengguang Wu [this message]
2013-01-09 8:26 ` Namjae Jeon
2013-01-09 15:13 ` Jan Kara
2013-01-10 2:50 ` Wanpeng Li
2013-01-10 11:58 ` Namjae Jeon
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=20130105031817.GA8650@localhost \
--to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linkinjeon@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=liwanp@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=namjae.jeon@samsung.com \
--cc=simon.jeons@gmail.com \
--cc=t.vivek@samsung.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).