All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Kennedy <richard@rsk.demon.co.uk>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: let the bdi_writeout fraction respond more quickly
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:44:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1276526681.1980.89.camel@castor.rsk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1276523894.1980.85.camel@castor.rsk>

On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 14:58 +0100, Richard Kennedy wrote:
> Hi all,
> The fraction of vm cache allowed to each BDI as calculated by
> get_dirty_limits (mm/page-writeback.c) respond very slowly to changes in
> workload.
> 
> Running a simple test that alternately writes 1Gb to sda then sdb,
> twice, shows the bdi_threshold taking approximately 15 seconds to reach
> a steady state value. This prevents a application from using all of the
> available cache and forces it to write to the physical disk earlier than
> strictly necessary.  
> As you can see from the attached graph, bdi_thresh_before.png, our
> current control system responds to this kind of workload very slowly.
> 
> The below patch speeds up the recalculation and lets it reach a steady
> state value in a couple of seconds. see bdi_thresh_after.png.
> 
> I get better throughput with this patch applied and have been running
> some variation of this on and off for some months without any obvious
> problems.
> 
> (These tests were all run on 2.6.35-rc3,
> where dm-2 is a sata drive lvm/ext4 and sdb is ide ext4.
> I've got lots more results and graphs but won't bore you all with
> them ;) )
> 
> I see this as a considerable improvement but I have found the magic
> number of -4 empirically so it may just be tuned to my system. I'm not
> sure how to decide on a value that is suitable for everyone. 
> 
> Does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts?
> 
> Unfortunately I don't have any other hardware to try this on, so I would
> be very interest to hear if anyone tries this on their favourite
> workload.
> 
> regards
> Richard
>  
> patch against 2.6.35-rc3
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
> index 2fdda90..315dd04 100644
> --- a/mm/page-writeback.c
> +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
> @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ static int calc_period_shift(void)
>  	else
>  		dirty_total = (vm_dirty_ratio * determine_dirtyable_memory()) /
>  				100;
> -	return 2 + ilog2(dirty_total - 1);
> +	return ilog2(dirty_total - 1) - 4;
>  }
>  
>  /*
> 
Fixed Jens email address. I can send you the graphs privately if you
haven't already got them.

regards
Richard



WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Richard Kennedy <richard@rsk.demon.co.uk>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: let the bdi_writeout fraction respond more quickly
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 15:44:41 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1276526681.1980.89.camel@castor.rsk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1276523894.1980.85.camel@castor.rsk>

On Mon, 2010-06-14 at 14:58 +0100, Richard Kennedy wrote:
> Hi all,
> The fraction of vm cache allowed to each BDI as calculated by
> get_dirty_limits (mm/page-writeback.c) respond very slowly to changes in
> workload.
> 
> Running a simple test that alternately writes 1Gb to sda then sdb,
> twice, shows the bdi_threshold taking approximately 15 seconds to reach
> a steady state value. This prevents a application from using all of the
> available cache and forces it to write to the physical disk earlier than
> strictly necessary.  
> As you can see from the attached graph, bdi_thresh_before.png, our
> current control system responds to this kind of workload very slowly.
> 
> The below patch speeds up the recalculation and lets it reach a steady
> state value in a couple of seconds. see bdi_thresh_after.png.
> 
> I get better throughput with this patch applied and have been running
> some variation of this on and off for some months without any obvious
> problems.
> 
> (These tests were all run on 2.6.35-rc3,
> where dm-2 is a sata drive lvm/ext4 and sdb is ide ext4.
> I've got lots more results and graphs but won't bore you all with
> them ;) )
> 
> I see this as a considerable improvement but I have found the magic
> number of -4 empirically so it may just be tuned to my system. I'm not
> sure how to decide on a value that is suitable for everyone. 
> 
> Does anyone have any suggestions or thoughts?
> 
> Unfortunately I don't have any other hardware to try this on, so I would
> be very interest to hear if anyone tries this on their favourite
> workload.
> 
> regards
> Richard
>  
> patch against 2.6.35-rc3
> 
> diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c
> index 2fdda90..315dd04 100644
> --- a/mm/page-writeback.c
> +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c
> @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ static int calc_period_shift(void)
>  	else
>  		dirty_total = (vm_dirty_ratio * determine_dirtyable_memory()) /
>  				100;
> -	return 2 + ilog2(dirty_total - 1);
> +	return ilog2(dirty_total - 1) - 4;
>  }
>  
>  /*
> 
Fixed Jens email address. I can send you the graphs privately if you
haven't already got them.

regards
Richard


--
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>

  reply	other threads:[~2010-06-14 14:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-06-14 13:58 [RFC PATCH] mm: let the bdi_writeout fraction respond more quickly Richard Kennedy
2010-06-14 14:44 ` Richard Kennedy [this message]
2010-06-14 14:44   ` Richard Kennedy
2010-06-16 18:54   ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-16 18:54     ` Peter Zijlstra
2010-06-17 11:39     ` Richard Kennedy
2010-06-17 11:39       ` Richard Kennedy
2010-06-17 11:41       ` Jens Axboe
2010-06-17 11:41         ` Jens Axboe
2010-06-17 18:45         ` Richard Kennedy
2010-06-17 18:45           ` Richard Kennedy

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=1276526681.1980.89.camel@castor.rsk \
    --to=richard@rsk.demon.co.uk \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    /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.