From: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Wanpeng Li <liwp.linux@gmail.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
PeterZijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Johannes Weiner <jweiner@redhat.com>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, Gavin Shan <shangw@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Wanpeng Li <liwp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] page-writeback.c: fix update bandwidth time judgment error
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 15:24:14 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120610072414.GA11283@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120610045300.GA29336@kernel>
On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:54:03PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:36:41PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> >Wanpeng,
> >
> >Sorry this I won't take this: it don't really improve anything. Even
> >with the changed test, the real intervals are still some random values
> >above (and not far away from) 200ms.. We are saying about 200ms
> >intervals just for convenience.
> >
> But some parts like:
>
> __bdi_update_bandwidth which bdi_update_bandwidth will call:
>
> if(elapsed < BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL)
> return;
>
> or
>
> global_update_bandwidth:
>
> if(time_before(now, update_time + BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL))
> return;
>
> You me just ignore this disunion ?
Not a problem for me. But if that consistency makes you feel happy,
you might revise the changelog and resend. But it's not that simple
for the below reason..
> >On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:20:05PM +0800, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >> From: Wanpneg Li <liwp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >>
> >> Since bdi_update_bandwidth function should estimate write bandwidth at 200ms intervals,
The above line represents a wrong assumption. It's normal for the
re-estimate intervals to be >= 200ms.
> >> so the time is bdi->bw_time_stamp + BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL == jiffies, but
> >> if use time_is_after_eq_jiffies intervals will be bdi->bw_time_stamp +
> >> BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL + 1.
Strictly speaking, to ensure that ">= 200ms" is true, we'll have to
skip the "jiffies == bw_time_stamp + BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL" case. For
example, when HZ=100, the bw_time_stamp may actually be recorded in
the very last ms of a 10ms range, and jiffies may be in the very first
ms of the current 10ms range. So if using ">=" comparisons, it may
actually let less than 200ms intervals go though.
We can only reliably ensure "> 200ms", but no way for ">= 200ms".
Thanks,
Fengguang
> >> Signed-off-by: Wanpeng Li <liwp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> ---
> >> mm/page-writeback.c | 2 +-
> >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
> >> index c833bf0..099e225 100644
> >> --- a/mm/page-writeback.c
> >> +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
> >> @@ -1032,7 +1032,7 @@ static void bdi_update_bandwidth(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
> >> unsigned long bdi_dirty,
> >> unsigned long start_time)
> >> {
> >> - if (time_is_after_eq_jiffies(bdi->bw_time_stamp + BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL))
> >> + if (time_is_after_jiffies(bdi->bw_time_stamp + BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL))
> >> return;
> >> spin_lock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
> >> __bdi_update_bandwidth(bdi, thresh, bg_thresh, dirty,
> >> --
> >> 1.7.9.5
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-10 7:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-10 4:20 [PATCH] page-writeback.c: fix update bandwidth time judgment error Wanpeng Li
2012-06-10 4:36 ` Fengguang Wu
2012-06-10 4:54 ` Wanpeng Li
2012-06-10 7:24 ` Fengguang Wu [this message]
2012-06-10 7:41 ` Wanpeng Li
2012-06-10 7:47 ` Fengguang Wu
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=20120610072414.GA11283@localhost \
--to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jweiner@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=liwp.linux@gmail.com \
--cc=liwp@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=shangw@linux.vnet.ibm.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).