On Wed, 2007-04-04 at 12:29 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > I'm worried about two things:
> > >
> > > 1) If the per-bdi threshold becomes smaller than the granularity of
> > > the per-bdi stat (due to the per-CPU counters), then things will
> > > break. Shouldn't there be some sanity checking for the calculated
> > > threshold?
> >
> > I'm not sure what you're referring to.
> >
> > void get_writeout_scale(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, int *scale, int *div)
> > {
> > int bits = vm_cycle_shift - 1;
> > unsigned long total = __global_bdi_stat(BDI_WRITEOUT_TOTAL);
> > unsigned long cycle = 1UL << bits;
> > unsigned long mask = cycle - 1;
> >
> > if (bdi_cap_writeback_dirty(bdi)) {
> > bdi_writeout_norm(bdi);
> > *scale = __bdi_stat(bdi, BDI_WRITEOUT);
> > } else
> > *scale = 0;
> >
> > *div = cycle + (total & mask);
> > }
> >
> > where cycle ~ vm_total_pages
> > scale can be a tad off due to overstep here:
> >
> > void __inc_bdi_stat(struct backing_dev_info *bdi, enum bdi_stat_item item)
> > {
> > struct bdi_per_cpu_data *pcd = &bdi->pcd[smp_processor_id()];
> > s8 *p = pcd->bdi_stat_diff + item;
> >
> > (*p)++;
> >
> > if (unlikely(*p > pcd->stat_threshold)) {
> > int overstep = pcd->stat_threshold / 2;
> >
> > bdi_stat_add(*p + overstep, bdi, item);
> > *p = -overstep;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > so it could be that: scale / cycle > 1
> > by a very small amount; however:
>
> No, I'm worried about the case when scale is too small. If the
> per-bdi threshold becomes smaller than stat_threshold, then things
> won't work, because dirty+writeback will never go below the threshold,
> possibly resulting in the deadlock we are trying to avoid.
/me goes refresh the deadlock details..
A writes to B; A exceeds the dirty limit but writeout is blocked by B
because the dirty limit is exceeded, right?
This cannot happen when we decouple the BDI dirty thresholds, even when
a threshold is 0.
A write to B; A exceeds A's limit and writes to B, B has limit of 0, the
1 dirty page gets written out (we gain ratio) and life goes on.
Right?
> BTW, the second argument of get_dirty_limits() doesn't seem to get
> used by the caller, or does it?
Correct, there are currently no in-tree users left. However I do use it
in a debug patch that shows bdi_dirty of total_dirty. We could remove
it, I have no strong feelings on it, I thought it might still be useful
for reporting or something.
> > > 2) The loop is sleeping in congestion_wait(WRITE), which seems wrong.
> > > It may well be possible that none of the queues are congested, so
> > > it will sleep the full .1 second. But by that time the queue may
> > > have become idle and is just sitting there doing nothing. Maybe
> > > there should be a per-bdi waitq, that is woken up, when the per-bdi
> > > stats are updated.
> >
> > Good point, .1 seconds is a lot of time.
> >
> > I'll cook up something like that if nobody beats me to it :-)
>
> I realized, that it's maybe worth storing last the threshold in the
> bdi as well, so that balance_dirty_pages() doesn't get woken up too
> many times unnecessarilty. But I don't know...
There is already a ratelimit somewhere, but I've heard it suggested to
remove that....
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
