lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] vmscan: remove wait_on_page_writeback() from pageout()
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 05:43:41PM +0800, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 04:46:54PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > The wait_on_page_writeback() call inside pageout() is virtually dead code.
> > >
> > > shrink_inactive_list()
> > > shrink_page_list(PAGEOUT_IO_ASYNC)
> > > pageout(PAGEOUT_IO_ASYNC)
> > > shrink_page_list(PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC)
> > > pageout(PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC)
> > >
> > > Because shrink_page_list/pageout(PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC) is always called after
> > > a preceding shrink_page_list/pageout(PAGEOUT_IO_ASYNC), the first
> > > pageout(ASYNC) converts dirty pages into writeback pages, the second
> > > shrink_page_list(SYNC) waits on the clean of writeback pages before
> > > calling pageout(SYNC). The second shrink_page_list(SYNC) can hardly run
> > > into dirty pages for pageout(SYNC) unless in some race conditions.
> > >
> >
> > It's possible for the second call to run into dirty pages as there is a
> > congestion_wait() call between the first shrink_page_list() call and the
> > second. That's a big window.
> >
> > > And the wait page-by-page behavior of pageout(SYNC) will lead to very
> > > long stall time if running into some range of dirty pages.
> >
> > True, but this is also lumpy reclaim which is depending on a contiguous
> > range of pages. It's better for it to wait on the selected range of pages
> > which is known to contain at least one old page than excessively scan and
> > reclaim newer pages.
>
> Today, I was successful to reproduce the Andres's issue. and I disagree this
> opinion.
> The root cause is, congestion_wait() mean "wait until clear io congestion". but
> if the system have plenty dirty pages, flusher threads are issueing IO conteniously.
> So, io congestion is not cleared long time. eventually, congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/10)
> become to equivalent to sleep(HZ/10).
>
> I would propose followint patch instead.
>
> And I've found synchronous lumpy reclaim have more serious problem. I woule like to
> explain it as another mail.
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> >From 0266fb2c23aef659cd4e89fccfeb464f23257b74 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2010 14:36:44 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] vmscan: synchronous lumpy reclaim don't call congestion_wait()
>
> congestion_wait() mean "waiting for number of requests in IO queue is
> under congestion threshold".
> That said, if the system have plenty dirty pages, flusher thread push
> new request to IO queue conteniously. So, IO queue are not cleared
> congestion status for a long time. thus, congestion_wait(HZ/10) is
> almostly equivalent schedule_timeout(HZ/10).
>
> If the system 512MB memory, DEF_PRIORITY mean 128kB scan and 4096 times
> shrink_inactive_list call. 4096 times 0.1sec stall makes crazy insane
> long stall. That shouldn't.

Good point. Maybe more clear to say: "It takes 4096 shrink_page_list()
calls to scan 512MB memory."

> In the other hand, this synchronous lumpy reclaim donesn't need this
> congestion_wait() at all. shrink_page_list(PAGEOUT_IO_SYNC) cause to
> call wait_on_page_writeback() and it provide sufficient waiting.

Agreed.

Reviewed-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>

Thanks,
Fengguang


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-08-01 07:35    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans