diff options
author | Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> | 2011-11-30 11:08:55 -0600 |
---|---|---|
committer | Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> | 2011-12-18 14:20:28 +0800 |
commit | 7ccb9ad5364d6ac0c803096c67e76a7545cf7a77 (patch) | |
tree | 53894333454bca278f20f9c5841dd1b45c384721 /mm | |
parent | 83712358ba0a1497ce59a4f84ce4dd0f803fe6fc (diff) | |
download | op-kernel-dev-7ccb9ad5364d6ac0c803096c67e76a7545cf7a77.zip op-kernel-dev-7ccb9ad5364d6ac0c803096c67e76a7545cf7a77.tar.gz |
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages()
with three parameters:
1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE
2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks
and is normally limited by max_pause/2
3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause
and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones
The typical behaviors after patch:
- if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time
will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be
fluctuating with task_ratelimit
- in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the
same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating
with task_ratelimit
In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because
task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause
We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause.
The notable behavior changes are:
- in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory
switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as
smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as
always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines,
otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories)
- in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below
dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and
nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a
(not that destructive but still not good) bug that
dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably
<= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated
<= weakly executed task_ratelimit
<= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause
<= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large
<= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit
- introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps
- when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the
next pause time
The "refactor" type of changes are:
The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more
efficient.
We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which
is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms)
because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2.
Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd.
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'mm')
-rw-r--r-- | mm/page-writeback.c | 125 |
1 files changed, 81 insertions, 44 deletions
diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c index 4919321..5830991 100644 --- a/mm/page-writeback.c +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c @@ -962,40 +962,81 @@ static unsigned long dirty_poll_interval(unsigned long dirty, return 1; } -static unsigned long bdi_max_pause(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, - unsigned long bdi_dirty) +static long bdi_max_pause(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, + unsigned long bdi_dirty) { - unsigned long bw = bdi->avg_write_bandwidth; - unsigned long hi = ilog2(bw); - unsigned long lo = ilog2(bdi->dirty_ratelimit); - unsigned long t; + long bw = bdi->avg_write_bandwidth; + long t; - /* target for 20ms max pause on 1-dd case */ - t = HZ / 50; + /* + * Limit pause time for small memory systems. If sleeping for too long + * time, a small pool of dirty/writeback pages may go empty and disk go + * idle. + * + * 8 serves as the safety ratio. + */ + t = bdi_dirty / (1 + bw / roundup_pow_of_two(1 + HZ / 8)); + t++; + + return min_t(long, t, MAX_PAUSE); +} + +static long bdi_min_pause(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, + long max_pause, + unsigned long task_ratelimit, + unsigned long dirty_ratelimit, + int *nr_dirtied_pause) +{ + long hi = ilog2(bdi->avg_write_bandwidth); + long lo = ilog2(bdi->dirty_ratelimit); + long t; /* target pause */ + long pause; /* estimated next pause */ + int pages; /* target nr_dirtied_pause */ + + /* target for 10ms pause on 1-dd case */ + t = max(1, HZ / 100); /* * Scale up pause time for concurrent dirtiers in order to reduce CPU * overheads. * - * (N * 20ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks. + * (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks. */ if (hi > lo) - t += (hi - lo) * (20 * HZ) / 1024; + t += (hi - lo) * (10 * HZ) / 1024; /* - * Limit pause time for small memory systems. If sleeping for too long - * time, a small pool of dirty/writeback pages may go empty and disk go - * idle. + * This is a bit convoluted. We try to base the next nr_dirtied_pause + * on the much more stable dirty_ratelimit. However the next pause time + * will be computed based on task_ratelimit and the two rate limits may + * depart considerably at some time. Especially if task_ratelimit goes + * below dirty_ratelimit/2 and the target pause is max_pause, the next + * pause time will be max_pause*2 _trimmed down_ to max_pause. As a + * result task_ratelimit won't be executed faithfully, which could + * eventually bring down dirty_ratelimit. * - * 8 serves as the safety ratio. + * We apply two rules to fix it up: + * 1) try to estimate the next pause time and if necessary, use a lower + * nr_dirtied_pause so as not to exceed max_pause. When this happens, + * nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. + * 2) limit the target pause time to max_pause/2, so that the normal + * small fluctuations of task_ratelimit won't trigger rule (1) and + * nr_dirtied_pause will remain as stable as dirty_ratelimit. */ - t = min(t, bdi_dirty * HZ / (8 * bw + 1)); + t = min(t, 1 + max_pause / 2); + pages = dirty_ratelimit * t / roundup_pow_of_two(HZ); + + pause = HZ * pages / (task_ratelimit + 1); + if (pause > max_pause) { + t = max_pause; + pages = task_ratelimit * t / roundup_pow_of_two(HZ); + } + *nr_dirtied_pause = pages; /* - * The pause time will be settled within range (max_pause/4, max_pause). - * Apply a minimal value of 4 to get a non-zero max_pause/4. + * The minimal pause time will normally be half the target pause time. */ - return clamp_val(t, 4, MAX_PAUSE); + return 1 + t / 2; } /* @@ -1017,11 +1058,13 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping, unsigned long dirty_thresh; unsigned long bdi_thresh; long period; - long pause = 0; - long uninitialized_var(max_pause); + long pause; + long max_pause; + long min_pause; + int nr_dirtied_pause; bool dirty_exceeded = false; unsigned long task_ratelimit; - unsigned long uninitialized_var(dirty_ratelimit); + unsigned long dirty_ratelimit; unsigned long pos_ratio; struct backing_dev_info *bdi = mapping->backing_dev_info; unsigned long start_time = jiffies; @@ -1051,6 +1094,8 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping, if (nr_dirty <= freerun) { current->dirty_paused_when = now; current->nr_dirtied = 0; + current->nr_dirtied_pause = + dirty_poll_interval(nr_dirty, dirty_thresh); break; } @@ -1101,14 +1146,17 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping, nr_dirty, bdi_thresh, bdi_dirty, start_time); - max_pause = bdi_max_pause(bdi, bdi_dirty); - dirty_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit; pos_ratio = bdi_position_ratio(bdi, dirty_thresh, background_thresh, nr_dirty, bdi_thresh, bdi_dirty); task_ratelimit = ((u64)dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio) >> RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT; + max_pause = bdi_max_pause(bdi, bdi_dirty); + min_pause = bdi_min_pause(bdi, max_pause, + task_ratelimit, dirty_ratelimit, + &nr_dirtied_pause); + if (unlikely(task_ratelimit == 0)) { period = max_pause; pause = max_pause; @@ -1125,7 +1173,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping, * future periods by updating the virtual time; otherwise just * do a reset, as it may be a light dirtier. */ - if (unlikely(pause <= 0)) { + if (pause < min_pause) { trace_balance_dirty_pages(bdi, dirty_thresh, background_thresh, @@ -1136,7 +1184,7 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping, task_ratelimit, pages_dirtied, period, - pause, + min(pause, 0L), start_time); if (pause < -HZ) { current->dirty_paused_when = now; @@ -1144,11 +1192,15 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping, } else if (period) { current->dirty_paused_when += period; current->nr_dirtied = 0; - } - pause = 1; /* avoid resetting nr_dirtied_pause below */ + } else if (current->nr_dirtied_pause <= pages_dirtied) + current->nr_dirtied_pause += pages_dirtied; break; } - pause = min(pause, max_pause); + if (unlikely(pause > max_pause)) { + /* for occasional dropped task_ratelimit */ + now += min(pause - max_pause, max_pause); + pause = max_pause; + } pause: trace_balance_dirty_pages(bdi, @@ -1168,6 +1220,7 @@ pause: current->dirty_paused_when = now + pause; current->nr_dirtied = 0; + current->nr_dirtied_pause = nr_dirtied_pause; /* * This is typically equal to (nr_dirty < dirty_thresh) and can @@ -1196,22 +1249,6 @@ pause: if (!dirty_exceeded && bdi->dirty_exceeded) bdi->dirty_exceeded = 0; - if (pause == 0) { /* in freerun area */ - current->nr_dirtied_pause = - dirty_poll_interval(nr_dirty, dirty_thresh); - } else if (period <= max_pause / 4 && - pages_dirtied >= current->nr_dirtied_pause) { - current->nr_dirtied_pause = clamp_val( - dirty_ratelimit * (max_pause / 2) / HZ, - pages_dirtied + pages_dirtied / 8, - pages_dirtied * 4); - } else if (pause >= max_pause) { - current->nr_dirtied_pause = 1 | clamp_val( - dirty_ratelimit * (max_pause / 2) / HZ, - pages_dirtied / 4, - pages_dirtied - pages_dirtied / 8); - } - if (writeback_in_progress(bdi)) return; |