lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jan]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/35] writeback: safety margin for bdi stat error
On Thu, Jan 13, 2011 at 05:59:49AM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 13-12-10 22:46:48, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > In a simple dd test on a 8p system with "mem=256M", I find all light
> > dirtier tasks on the root fs are get heavily throttled. That happens
> > because the global limit is exceeded. It's unbelievable at first sight,
> > because the test fs doing the heavy dd is under its bdi limit. After
> > doing some tracing, it's discovered that
> >
> > bdi_dirty < bdi_dirty_limit() < global_dirty_limit() < nr_dirty
> ^^ bdi_dirty is the number of pages dirtied on BDI? I.e.
> bdi_nr_reclaimable + bdi_nr_writeback?

Yes.

> > So the root cause is, the bdi_dirty is well under the global nr_dirty
> > due to accounting errors. This can be fixed by using bdi_stat_sum(),
> So which statistic had the big error? I'd just like to understand
> this (and how come your patch improves the situation)...

bdi_stat_error() = nr_cpu_ids * BDI_STAT_BATCH
= 8 * (8*(1+ilog2(8)))
= 8 * 8 * 4
= 256 pages
= 1MB

> > however that's costly on large NUMA machines. So do a less costly fix
> > of lowering the bdi limit, so that the accounting errors won't lead to
> > the absurd situation "global limit exceeded but bdi limit not exceeded".
> >
> > This provides guarantee when there is only 1 heavily dirtied bdi, and
> > works by opportunity for 2+ heavy dirtied bdi's (hopefully they won't
> > reach big error _and_ exceed their bdi limit at the same time).
> >
> ...
> > @@ -458,6 +464,14 @@ unsigned long bdi_dirty_limit(struct bac
> > long numerator, denominator;
> >
> > /*
> > + * try to prevent "global limit exceeded but bdi limit not exceeded"
> > + */
> > + if (likely(dirty > bdi_stat_error(bdi)))
> > + dirty -= bdi_stat_error(bdi);
> > + else
> > + return 0;
> > +
> Ugh, so if by any chance global_dirty_limit() <= bdi_stat_error(bdi), you
> will limit number of unreclaimable pages for that bdi 0? Why?

Good catch! Yeah it may lead to regressions and should be voided.

Thanks,
Fengguang


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-01-13 05:17    [W:0.299 / U:0.144 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site