lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [24]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 06/13] writeback: bdi write bandwidth estimation
On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:12:33PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 21:46 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 09:42:09PM +0800, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 21:20 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > > (jiffies - bdi->write_bandwidth_update_time < elapsed)
> > > >
> > > > this will be true if someone else has _done_ overlapped estimation,
> > > > otherwise it will equal:
> > > >
> > > > jiffies - bdi->write_bandwidth_update_time == elapsed
> > > >
> > > > Sorry the comment needs updating.
> > >
> > > Right, but its racy as hell..
> >
> > Yeah, for N concurrent dirtiers, plus the background flusher, only
> > one is able to update write_bandwidth[_update_time]..
>
> Wrong, nr_cpus are, they could all observe the old value before seeing
> the update of the variable.

Yes, that's what I meant to do it "per-cpu" in the previous email.

> Why not something like the below, which keeps the stamps per bdi and
> serializes on a lock (trylock, you only need a single updater at any one
> time anyway):

Hmm, but why not avoid locking at all? With per-cpu bandwidth vars,
each CPU will see slightly different bandwidth, but that should be
close enough and not a big problem.

> probably got the math wrong, but the idea should be clear, you can even
> add an explicit bdi_update_bandwidth_stamps() function which resets the
> stamps to the current situation in order to skip periods of low
> throughput (that would need to do spin_lock).
>
> ---
> diff --git a/include/linux/backing-dev.h b/include/linux/backing-dev.h
> index 4ce34fa..de690c3 100644
> --- a/include/linux/backing-dev.h
> +++ b/include/linux/backing-dev.h
> @@ -40,6 +40,7 @@ typedef int (congested_fn)(void *, int);
> enum bdi_stat_item {
> BDI_RECLAIMABLE,
> BDI_WRITEBACK,
> + BDI_WRITTEN,
> NR_BDI_STAT_ITEMS
> };
>
> @@ -88,6 +89,11 @@ struct backing_dev_info {
>
> struct timer_list laptop_mode_wb_timer;
>
> + spinlock_t bw_lock;
> + unsigned long bw_time_stamp;
> + unsigned long bw_write_stamp;
> + int write_bandwidth;
> +
> #ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_FS
> struct dentry *debug_dir;
> struct dentry *debug_stats;
> diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c
> index 027100d..a934fe9 100644
> --- a/mm/backing-dev.c
> +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
> @@ -661,6 +661,11 @@ int bdi_init(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> bdi->dirty_exceeded = 0;
> err = prop_local_init_percpu(&bdi->completions);
>
> + spin_lock_init(&bdi->bw_lock);
> + bdi->bw_time_stamp = jiffies;
> + bdi->bw_write_stamp = 0;
> + bdi->write_bandwidth = 100 << (20 - PAGE_SHIFT); /* 100 MB/s */
> +
> if (err) {
> err:
> while (i--)
> diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
> index b840afa..f3f5c24 100644
> --- a/mm/page-writeback.c
> +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
> @@ -219,6 +219,7 @@ int dirty_bytes_handler(struct ctl_table *table, int write,
> */
> static inline void __bdi_writeout_inc(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> {
> + __inc_bdi_state(bdi, BDI_WRITTEN);
> __prop_inc_percpu_max(&vm_completions, &bdi->completions,
> bdi->max_prop_frac);
> }
> @@ -238,6 +239,35 @@ void task_dirty_inc(struct task_struct *tsk)
> prop_inc_single(&vm_dirties, &tsk->dirties);
> }
>
> +void bdi_update_write_bandwidth(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> +{
> + unsigned long time_now, write_now;
> + long time_delta, write_delta;
> + long bw;
> +
> + if (!spin_try_lock(&bdi->bw_lock))
> + return;

spin_try_lock is good, however is still global state and risks
cacheline bouncing..

> + write_now = bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_WRITTEN);
> + time_now = jiffies;
> +
> + write_delta = write_now - bdi->bw_write_stamp;
> + time_delta = time_now - bdi->bw_time_stamp;
> +
> + /* rate-limit, only update once every 100ms */
> + if (time_delta < HZ/10 || !write_delta)
> + goto unlock;
> +
> + bdi->bw_write_stamp = write_now;
> + bdi->bw_time_stamp = time_now;
> +
> + bw = write_delta * HZ / time_delta;
> + bdi->write_bandwidth = (bdi->write_bandwidth + bw + 3) / 4;
> +
> +unlock:
> + spin_unlock(&bdi->bw_lock);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Obtain an accurate fraction of the BDI's portion.
> */
>


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-24 15:23    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans