lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 06/13] writeback: bdi write bandwidth estimation
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 06:58:22PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 12:27 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
>
> > @@ -555,8 +592,10 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
> > pause = clamp_val(pause, 1, HZ/10);
> >
> > pause:
> > + bdi_update_write_bandwidth(bdi, &bw_time, &bw_written);
> > __set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
> > io_schedule_timeout(pause);
> > + bdi_update_write_bandwidth(bdi, &bw_time, &bw_written);
> >
> > /*
> > * The bdi thresh is somehow "soft" limit derived from the
>
> So its really a two part bandwidth calculation, the first call is:
>
> bdi_get_bandwidth()
>
> and the second call is:
>
> bdi_update_bandwidth()
>
> Would it make sense to actually implement it with two functions instead
> of overloading the functionality of the one function?

Thanks, it's good suggestion indeed. However after looking around, I
find it hard to split it up cleanly.. To make it clear, how about this
comment update?

Thanks,
Fengguang
---
--- linux-next.orig/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-11-24 19:05:01.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/mm/page-writeback.c 2010-11-24 22:01:43.000000000 +0800
@@ -554,6 +554,14 @@ out:
return a;
}

+/*
+ * This can be repeatedly called inside a long run loop, eg. by wb_writeback().
+ *
+ * On first invocation it will find *bw_written=0 and take the initial snapshot.
+ * On follow up calls it will update the bandwidth if
+ * - at least 10ms data have been collected
+ * - the bandwidth for the time range has not been updated in parallel by others
+ */
void bdi_update_write_bandwidth(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
unsigned long *bw_time,
s64 *bw_written)
@@ -575,9 +583,12 @@ void bdi_update_write_bandwidth(struct b
* When there lots of tasks throttled in balance_dirty_pages(), they
* will each try to update the bandwidth for the same period, making
* the bandwidth drift much faster than the desired rate (as in the
- * single dirtier case). So do some rate limiting.
+ * single dirtier case).
+ *
+ * If someone changed bdi->write_bandwidth_update_time, he has done
+ * overlapped estimation with us. So start the next round of estimation.
*/
- if (jiffies - bdi->write_bandwidth_update_time < elapsed)
+ if (jiffies - bdi->write_bandwidth_update_time != elapsed)
goto snapshot;

written = percpu_counter_read(&bdi->bdi_stat[BDI_WRITTEN]) - *bw_written;

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-24 15:09    [W:0.402 / U:1.080 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site