lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Jan]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] writeback: fix writeback cache thrashing
From
Date
On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 13:35 +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> 2013/1/2, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>:
> > On Tue 01-01-13 08:51:04, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> >> On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 12:30:54PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> >> >On Sun 30-12-12 14:59:50, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> >> >> From: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>
> >> >>
> >> >> Consider Process A: huge I/O on sda
> >> >> doing heavy write operation - dirty memory becomes more
> >> >> than dirty_background_ratio
> >> >> on HDD - flusher thread flush-8:0
> >> >>
> >> >> Consider Process B: small I/O on sdb
> >> >> doing while [1]; read 1024K + rewrite 1024K + sleep 2sec
> >> >> on Flash device - flusher thread flush-8:16
> >> >>
> >> >> As Process A is a heavy dirtier, dirty memory becomes more
> >> >> than dirty_background_thresh. Due to this, below check becomes
> >> >> true(checking global_page_state in over_bground_thresh)
> >> >> for all bdi devices(even for very small dirtied bdi - sdb):
> >> >>
> >> >> In this case, even small cached data on 'sdb' is forced to flush
> >> >> and writeback cache thrashing happens.
> >> >>
> >> >> When we added debug prints inside above 'if' condition and ran
> >> >> above Process A(heavy dirtier on bdi with flush-8:0) and
> >> >> Process B(1024K frequent read/rewrite on bdi with flush-8:16)
> >> >> we got below prints:
> >> >>
> >> >> [Test setup: ARM dual core CPU, 512 MB RAM]
> >> >>
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 56064 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 56704 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 84720 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 94720 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 384 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 960 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 64 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 92160 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 256 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 768 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 64 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 256 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 320 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 0 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 92032 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 91968 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 192 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 1024 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 64 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 192 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 576 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 0 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 84352 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 192 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 512 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 0 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 92608 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 92544 KB
> >> >>
> >> >> As mentioned in above log, when global dirty memory > global
> >> >> background_thresh
> >> >> small cached data is also forced to flush by flush-8:16.
> >> >>
> >> >> If removing global background_thresh checking code, we can reduce
> >> >> cache
> >> >> thrashing of frequently used small data.
> >> > It's not completely clear to me:
> >> > Why is this a problem? Wearing of the flash? Power consumption? I'd
> >> > like
> >> >to understand this before changing the code...
> Hi Jan.
> Yes, it can reduce wearing and fragmentation of flash. And also from
> one scenario - we
> think it might reduce power consumption also.
>
> >> >
> >> >> And It will be great if we can reserve a portion of writeback cache
> >> >> using
> >> >> min_ratio.
> >> >>
> >> >> After applying patch:
> >> >> $ echo 5 > /sys/block/sdb/bdi/min_ratio
> >> >> $ cat /sys/block/sdb/bdi/min_ratio
> >> >> 5
> >> >>
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 56064 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 56704 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 84160 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 96960 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 94080 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 93120 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 93120 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 91520 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 89600 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 93696 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 93696 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 72960 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 90624 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 90624 KB
> >> >> [over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 90688 KB
> >> >>
> >> >> As mentioned in the above logs, once cache is reserved for Process B,
> >> >> and patch is applied there is less writeback cache thrashing on sdb
> >> >> by frequent forced writeback by flush-8:16 in over_bground_thresh.
> >> >>
> >> >> After all, small cached data will be flushed by periodic writeback
> >> >> once every dirty_writeback_interval.
> >> > OK, in principle something like this makes sence to me. But if there
> >> > are
> >> >more BDIs which are roughly equally used, it could happen none of them
> >> > are
> >> >over threshold due to percpu counter & rounding errors. So I'd rather
> >> >change the conditions to something like:
> >> > reclaimable = bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_RECLAIMABLE);
> >> > bdi_bground_thresh = bdi_dirty_limit(bdi, background_thresh);
> >> >
> >> > if (reclaimable > bdi_bground_thresh)
> >> > return true;
> >> > /*
> >> > * If global background limit is exceeded, kick the writeback on
> >> > * BDI if there's a reasonable amount of data to write (at least
> >> > * 1/2 of BDI's background dirty limit).
> >> > */
> >> > if (global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> >> > global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS) > background_thresh &&
> >> > reclaimable * 2 > bdi_bground_thresh)
> >> > return true;
> >> >
> >>
> >> Hi Jan,
> >>
> >> If there are enough BDIs and percpu counter of each bdi roughly equally
> >> used less than 1/2 of BDI's background dirty limit, still nothing will
> >> be flushed even if over global background_thresh.
> > Yes, although then the percpu counter error would have to be quite big.
> > Anyway, we can change the last condition to:
> > if (global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> > global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS) > background_thresh &&
> > reclaimable * 2 + bdi_stat_error(bdi) * 2 > bdi_bground_thresh)
> >
> > That should be safe and for machines with resonable number of CPUs it
> > should save the wakeup as well.
> I agree and will send v2 patch as your suggestion.

Hi Namjae,

Why use bdi_stat_error here? What's the meaning of its comment "maximal
error of a stat counter"?

>
> Thanks Jan.
> >
> > Honza
> >
> >> >> Suggested-by: Wanpeng Li <liwanp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>
> >> >> Signed-off-by: Vivek Trivedi <t.vivek@samsung.com>
> >> >> Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> >> >> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> >> >> Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> >> >> ---
> >> >> fs/fs-writeback.c | 4 ----
> >> >> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
> >> >>
> >> >> diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> >> >> index 310972b..070b773 100644
> >> >> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
> >> >> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> >> >> @@ -756,10 +756,6 @@ static bool over_bground_thresh(struct
> >> >> backing_dev_info *bdi)
> >> >>
> >> >> global_dirty_limits(&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh);
> >> >>
> >> >> - if (global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) +
> >> >> - global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS) > background_thresh)
> >> >> - return true;
> >> >> -
> >> >> if (bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_RECLAIMABLE) >
> >> >> bdi_dirty_limit(bdi, background_thresh))
> >> >> return true;
> >> >> --
> >> >> 1.7.9.5
> >> >>
> >> >--
> >> >Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> >> >SUSE Labs, CR
> >> >
> >> >--
> >> >To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> >> >the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> >> >see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> >> >Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
> >>
> > --
> > Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > SUSE Labs, CR
> >
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-01-04 03:21    [W:1.400 / U:0.360 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site