linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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>

  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).