All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Hillf Danton <hdanton@sina.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Michael Stapelberg <stapelberg+linux@google.com>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/5] writeback: Fix bandwidth estimate for spiky workload
Date: Wed,  7 Jul 2021 15:40:17 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210707074017.2195-1-hdanton@sina.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210705162328.28366-3-jack@suse.cz>

On Mon,  5 Jul 2021 18:23:17 +0200 Jan Kara wrote:
>
>Michael Stapelberg has reported that for workload with short big spikes
>of writes (GCC linker seem to trigger this frequently) the write
>throughput is heavily underestimated and tends to steadily sink until it
>reaches zero. This has rather bad impact on writeback throttling
>(causing stalls). The problem is that writeback throughput estimate gets
>updated at most once per 200 ms. One update happens early after we
>submit pages for writeback (at that point writeout of only small
>fraction of pages is completed and thus observed throughput is tiny).
>Next update happens only during the next write spike (updates happen
>only from inode writeback and dirty throttling code) and if that is
>more than 1s after previous spike, we decide system was idle and just
>ignore whatever was written until this moment.
>
>Fix the problem by making sure writeback throughput estimate is also
>updated shortly after writeback completes to get reasonable estimate of
>throughput for spiky workloads.
>
>Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210617095309.3542373-1-stapelberg+li>nux@google.com
>Reported-by: Michael Stapelberg <stapelberg+linux@google.com>
>Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
>---
> include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h |  1 +
> include/linux/writeback.h        |  1 +
> mm/backing-dev.c                 | 10 ++++++++++
> mm/page-writeback.c              | 32 ++++++++++++++++----------------
> 4 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>
>diff --git a/include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h b/include/linux/backing-dev>-defs.h
>index 148d889f2f7f..57395f7bb192 100644
>--- a/include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h
>+++ b/include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h
>@@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ struct bdi_writeback {
> 	spinlock_t work_lock;		/* protects work_list & dwork scheduling */
> 	struct list_head work_list;
> 	struct delayed_work dwork;	/* work item used for writeback */
>+	struct delayed_work bw_dwork;	/* work item used for bandwidth estimate >*/
>
> 	unsigned long dirty_sleep;	/* last wait */
>
>diff --git a/include/linux/writeback.h b/include/linux/writeback.h
>index 47cd732e012e..a45e09ed0711 100644
>--- a/include/linux/writeback.h
>+++ b/include/linux/writeback.h
>@@ -379,6 +379,7 @@ int dirty_writeback_centisecs_handler(struct ctl_tabl>e *table, int write,
> void global_dirty_limits(unsigned long *pbackground, unsigned long *pdir>ty);
> unsigned long wb_calc_thresh(struct bdi_writeback *wb, unsigned long thr>esh);
>
>+void wb_update_bandwidth(struct bdi_writeback *wb);
> void balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited(struct address_space *mapping);
> bool wb_over_bg_thresh(struct bdi_writeback *wb);
>
>diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c
>index 342394ef1e02..9baa59d68110 100644
>--- a/mm/backing-dev.c
>+++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
>@@ -271,6 +271,14 @@ void wb_wakeup_delayed(struct bdi_writeback *wb)
> 	spin_unlock_bh(&wb->work_lock);
> }
>
>+static void wb_update_bandwidth_workfn(struct work_struct *work)
>+{
>+	struct bdi_writeback *wb = container_of(to_delayed_work(work),
>+						struct bdi_writeback, bw_dwork);
>+
>+	wb_update_bandwidth(wb);
>+}
>+
> /*
>  * Initial write bandwidth: 100 MB/s
>  */
>@@ -303,6 +311,7 @@ static int wb_init(struct bdi_writeback *wb, struct b>acking_dev_info *bdi,
> 	spin_lock_init(&wb->work_lock);
> 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wb->work_list);
> 	INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&wb->dwork, wb_workfn);
>+	INIT_DELAYED_WORK(&wb->bw_dwork, wb_update_bandwidth_workfn);
> 	wb->dirty_sleep = jiffies;
>
> 	err = fprop_local_init_percpu(&wb->completions, gfp);
>@@ -351,6 +360,7 @@ static void wb_shutdown(struct bdi_writeback *wb)
> 	mod_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &wb->dwork, 0);
> 	flush_delayed_work(&wb->dwork);
> 	WARN_ON(!list_empty(&wb->work_list));
>+	flush_delayed_work(&wb->bw_dwork);
> }
>
> static void wb_exit(struct bdi_writeback *wb)
>diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
>index 1fecf8ebadb0..6a99ddca95c0 100644
>--- a/mm/page-writeback.c
>+++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
>@@ -1346,14 +1346,7 @@ static void __wb_update_bandwidth(struct dirty_thr>ottle_control *gdtc,
> 	unsigned long dirtied;
> 	unsigned long written;
>
>-	lockdep_assert_held(&wb->list_lock);
>-
>-	/*
>-	 * rate-limit, only update once every 200ms.
>-	 */
>-	if (elapsed < BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL)
>-		return;

Please leave it as it is if you are not dumping the 200ms rule.

>-
>+	spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
> 	dirtied = percpu_counter_read(&wb->stat[WB_DIRTIED]);
> 	written = percpu_counter_read(&wb->stat[WB_WRITTEN]);
>
>@@ -1375,15 +1368,14 @@ static void __wb_update_bandwidth(struct dirty_th>rottle_control *gdtc,
> 	wb->dirtied_stamp = dirtied;
> 	wb->written_stamp = written;
> 	wb->bw_time_stamp = now;
>+	spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
> }
>
>-static void wb_update_bandwidth(struct bdi_writeback *wb)
>+void wb_update_bandwidth(struct bdi_writeback *wb)
> {
> 	struct dirty_throttle_control gdtc = { GDTC_INIT(wb) };
>
>-	spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
> 	__wb_update_bandwidth(&gdtc, NULL, false);
>-	spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
> }
>
> /* Interval after which we consider wb idle and don't estimate bandwidth> */
>@@ -1728,11 +1720,8 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct bdi_writeba>ck *wb,
> 			wb->dirty_exceeded = 1;
>
> 		if (time_is_before_jiffies(wb->bw_time_stamp +
>-					   BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL)) {
>-			spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
>+					   BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL))
> 			__wb_update_bandwidth(gdtc, mdtc, true);
>-			spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
>-		}
>
> 		/* throttle according to the chosen dtc */
> 		dirty_ratelimit = wb->dirty_ratelimit;
>@@ -2371,7 +2360,13 @@ int do_writepages(struct address_space *mapping, s>truct writeback_control *wbc)
> 		cond_resched();
> 		congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/50);
> 	}
>-	wb_update_bandwidth(wb);
>+	/*
>+	 * Usually few pages are written by now from those we've just submitted
>+	 * but if there's constant writeback being submitted, this makes sure
>+	 * writeback bandwidth is updated once in a while.
>+	 */
>+	if (time_is_before_jiffies(wb->bw_time_stamp + BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL))
>+		wb_update_bandwidth(wb);
> 	return ret;
> }
>
>@@ -2742,6 +2737,11 @@ static void wb_inode_writeback_start(struct bdi_wr>iteback *wb)
> static void wb_inode_writeback_end(struct bdi_writeback *wb)
> {
> 	atomic_dec(&wb->writeback_inodes);
>+	/*
>+	 * Make sure estimate of writeback throughput gets
>+	 * updated after writeback completed.
>+	 */
>+	queue_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &wb->bw_dwork, BANDWIDTH_INTERVAL);
> }

This is a bogus estimate - it does not break the 200ms rule but walks around it
without specifying why 300ms is not good.


  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-07  7:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-05 16:23 [PATCH 0/5] writeback: Fix bandwidth estimates Jan Kara
2021-07-05 16:23 ` [PATCH 1/5] writeback: Track number of inodes under writeback Jan Kara
2021-07-05 16:23 ` [PATCH 2/5] writeback: Reliably update bandwidth estimation Jan Kara
2021-07-05 16:23 ` [PATCH 3/5] writeback: Fix bandwidth estimate for spiky workload Jan Kara
2021-07-07  7:40   ` Hillf Danton [this message]
2021-07-07  9:51     ` Jan Kara
2021-07-08 12:17       ` Hillf Danton
2021-07-08 16:43         ` Jan Kara
2021-07-09  8:01           ` Hillf Danton
2021-07-05 16:23 ` [PATCH 4/5] writeback: Rename domain_update_bandwidth() Jan Kara
2021-07-05 16:23 ` [PATCH 5/5] writeback: Use READ_ONCE for unlocked reads of writeback stats Jan Kara
2021-07-09 13:19 ` [PATCH 0/5] writeback: Fix bandwidth estimates Michael Stapelberg
2021-07-09 13:19   ` Michael Stapelberg
2021-07-12 16:27   ` Jan Kara
2021-07-13  8:15     ` Michael Stapelberg
2021-07-13 10:24 [PATCH 0/5 v2] " Jan Kara
2021-07-13 10:24 ` [PATCH 3/5] writeback: Fix bandwidth estimate for spiky workload Jan Kara
2021-07-13 10:36 [PATCH 0/5 v3] writeback: Fix bandwidth estimates Jan Kara
2021-07-13 10:36 ` [PATCH 3/5] writeback: Fix bandwidth estimate for spiky workload Jan Kara
2021-07-13 10:47 [PATCH 0/5 v4] writeback: Fix bandwidth estimates Jan Kara
2021-07-13 10:47 ` [PATCH 3/5] writeback: Fix bandwidth estimate for spiky workload Jan Kara

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20210707074017.2195-1-hdanton@sina.com \
    --to=hdanton@sina.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=stapelberg+linux@google.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.