Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 24 Aug 2011 08:12:58 +0800 | From | Wu Fengguang <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/5] writeback: dirty position control |
| |
> You somehow directly jump to > > balanced_rate = task_ratelimit_200ms * write_bw / dirty_rate > > without explaining why following will not work. > > balanced_rate_(i+1) = balance_rate(i) * write_bw / dirty_rate
Thanks for asking that, it's probably the root of confusions, so let me answer it standalone.
It's actually pretty simple to explain this equation:
write_bw balanced_rate = task_ratelimit_200ms * ---------- (1) dirty_rate
If there are N dd tasks, each task is throttled at task_ratelimit_200ms for the past 200ms, we are going to measure the overall bdi dirty rate
dirty_rate = N * task_ratelimit_200ms (2)
put (2) into (1) we get
balanced_rate = write_bw / N (3)
So equation (1) is the right estimation to get the desired target (3).
As for
write_bw balanced_rate_(i+1) = balanced_rate_(i) * ---------- (4) dirty_rate
Let's compare it with the "expanded" form of (1):
write_bw balanced_rate_(i+1) = balanced_rate_(i) * pos_ratio * ---------- (5) dirty_rate
So the difference lies in pos_ratio.
Believe it or not, it's exactly the seemingly use of pos_ratio that makes (5) independent(*) of the position control.
Why? Look at (4), assume the system is in a state
- dirty rate is already balanced, ie. balanced_rate_(i) = write_bw / N - dirty position is not balanced, for example pos_ratio = 0.5
balance_dirty_pages() will be rate limiting each tasks at half the balanced dirty rate, yielding a measured
dirty_rate = write_bw / 2 (6)
Put (6) into (4), we get
balanced_rate_(i+1) = balanced_rate_(i) * 2 = (write_bw / N) * 2
That means, any position imbalance will lead to balanced_rate estimation errors if we follow (4). Whereas if (1)/(5) is used, we always get the right balanced dirty ratelimit value whether or not (pos_ratio == 1.0), hence make the rate estimation independent(*) of dirty position control.
(*) independent as in real values, not the seemingly relations in equation
Thanks, Fengguang
| |