All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
	Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:54:06 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110819025406.GA13365@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110819020637.GA13597@redhat.com>

Hi Vivek,

> > +		base_rate = bdi->dirty_ratelimit;
> > +		pos_ratio = bdi_position_ratio(bdi, dirty_thresh,
> > +					       background_thresh, nr_dirty,
> > +					       bdi_thresh, bdi_dirty);
> > +		if (unlikely(pos_ratio == 0)) {
> > +			pause = MAX_PAUSE;
> > +			goto pause;
> >  		}
> > +		task_ratelimit = (u64)base_rate *
> > +					pos_ratio >> RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT;
> 
> Hi Fenguaang,
> 
> I am little confused here. I see that you have already taken pos_ratio
> into account in bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit() and wondering why to take
> that into account again in balance_diry_pages().
> 
> We calculated the pos_rate and balanced_rate and adjusted the
> bdi->dirty_ratelimit accordingly in bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit().

Good question. There are some inter-dependencies in the calculation,
and the dependency chain is the opposite to the one in your mind:
balance_dirty_pages() used pos_ratio in the first place, so that
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit() have to use pos_ratio in the calculation
of the balanced dirty rate, too.

Let's return to how the balanced dirty rate is estimated. Please pay
special attention to the last paragraphs below the "......" line.

Start by throttling each dd task at rate

        task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0                               (1)
                         (any non-zero initial value is OK)

After 200ms, we measured

        dirty_rate = # of pages dirtied by all dd's / 200ms
        write_bw   = # of pages written to the disk / 200ms

For the aggressive dd dirtiers, the equality holds

        dirty_rate == N * task_rate
                   == N * task_ratelimit
                   == N * task_ratelimit_0                              (2)
Or     
        task_ratelimit_0 = dirty_rate / N                               (3)

Now we conclude that the balanced task ratelimit can be estimated by

        balanced_rate = task_ratelimit_0 * (write_bw / dirty_rate)      (4)

Because with (2) and (3), (4) yields the desired equality (1):

        balanced_rate == (dirty_rate / N) * (write_bw / dirty_rate)
                      == write_bw / N

.............................................................................

Now let's revisit (1). Since balance_dirty_pages() chooses to execute
the ratelimit

        task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0
                       = dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio                    (5)

Put (5) into (4), we get the final form used in
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit()

        balanced_rate = (dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio) * (write_bw / dirty_rate)

So you really need to take (dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio) as a single entity.

Thanks,
Fengguang

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Cc: "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@gmail.com>,
	Andrea Righi <arighi@develer.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 10:54:06 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110819025406.GA13365@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110819020637.GA13597@redhat.com>

Hi Vivek,

> > +		base_rate = bdi->dirty_ratelimit;
> > +		pos_ratio = bdi_position_ratio(bdi, dirty_thresh,
> > +					       background_thresh, nr_dirty,
> > +					       bdi_thresh, bdi_dirty);
> > +		if (unlikely(pos_ratio == 0)) {
> > +			pause = MAX_PAUSE;
> > +			goto pause;
> >  		}
> > +		task_ratelimit = (u64)base_rate *
> > +					pos_ratio >> RATELIMIT_CALC_SHIFT;
> 
> Hi Fenguaang,
> 
> I am little confused here. I see that you have already taken pos_ratio
> into account in bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit() and wondering why to take
> that into account again in balance_diry_pages().
> 
> We calculated the pos_rate and balanced_rate and adjusted the
> bdi->dirty_ratelimit accordingly in bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit().

Good question. There are some inter-dependencies in the calculation,
and the dependency chain is the opposite to the one in your mind:
balance_dirty_pages() used pos_ratio in the first place, so that
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit() have to use pos_ratio in the calculation
of the balanced dirty rate, too.

Let's return to how the balanced dirty rate is estimated. Please pay
special attention to the last paragraphs below the "......" line.

Start by throttling each dd task at rate

        task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0                               (1)
                         (any non-zero initial value is OK)

After 200ms, we measured

        dirty_rate = # of pages dirtied by all dd's / 200ms
        write_bw   = # of pages written to the disk / 200ms

For the aggressive dd dirtiers, the equality holds

        dirty_rate == N * task_rate
                   == N * task_ratelimit
                   == N * task_ratelimit_0                              (2)
Or     
        task_ratelimit_0 = dirty_rate / N                               (3)

Now we conclude that the balanced task ratelimit can be estimated by

        balanced_rate = task_ratelimit_0 * (write_bw / dirty_rate)      (4)

Because with (2) and (3), (4) yields the desired equality (1):

        balanced_rate == (dirty_rate / N) * (write_bw / dirty_rate)
                      == write_bw / N

.............................................................................

Now let's revisit (1). Since balance_dirty_pages() chooses to execute
the ratelimit

        task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0
                       = dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio                    (5)

Put (5) into (4), we get the final form used in
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit()

        balanced_rate = (dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio) * (write_bw / dirty_rate)

So you really need to take (dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio) as a single entity.

Thanks,
Fengguang

--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2011-08-19  2:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 82+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-08-16  2:20 [PATCH 0/5] IO-less dirty throttling v9 Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20 ` [PATCH 1/5] writeback: account per-bdi accumulated dirtied pages Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20 ` [PATCH 2/5] writeback: dirty position control Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16 19:41   ` Jan Kara
2011-08-16 19:41     ` Jan Kara
2011-08-17 13:23     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-17 13:49       ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-17 13:49         ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-17 20:24       ` Jan Kara
2011-08-17 20:24         ` Jan Kara
2011-08-18  4:18         ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-18  4:18           ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-18  4:41           ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-18  4:41             ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-18 19:16           ` Jan Kara
2011-08-18 19:16             ` Jan Kara
2011-08-24  3:16         ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-24  3:16           ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-19  2:53   ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-19  2:53     ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-19  3:25     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-19  3:25       ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20 ` [PATCH 3/5] writeback: dirty rate control Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20 ` [PATCH 4/5] writeback: per task dirty rate limit Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  7:17   ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-16  7:17     ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-16  7:22     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  7:22       ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20 ` [PATCH 5/5] writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages() Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-16  2:20   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-19  2:06   ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-19  2:06     ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-19  2:54     ` Wu Fengguang [this message]
2011-08-19  2:54       ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-19 19:00       ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-19 19:00         ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-21  3:46         ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-21  3:46           ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-22 17:22           ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-22 17:22             ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-23  1:07             ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-23  1:07               ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-23  3:53               ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-23  3:53                 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-23 13:53               ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-23 13:53                 ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-24  3:09                 ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-24  3:09                   ` Wu Fengguang
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-08-06  8:44 [PATCH 0/5] IO-less dirty throttling v8 Wu Fengguang
2011-08-06  8:44 ` [PATCH 5/5] writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages() Wu Fengguang
2011-08-06  8:44   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-06  8:44   ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-06 14:48   ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-06 14:48     ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-06 14:48     ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-07  6:44     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-07  6:44       ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-07  6:44       ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-06 16:46   ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-06 16:46     ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-07  7:18     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-07  9:50       ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-07  9:50         ` Andrea Righi
2011-08-09 18:15   ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-09 18:15     ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-09 18:41     ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-09 18:41       ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-09 18:41       ` Peter Zijlstra
2011-08-10  3:22       ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-10  3:22         ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-10  3:26     ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-10  3:26       ` Wu Fengguang
2011-08-09 19:16   ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-09 19:16     ` Vivek Goyal
2011-08-10  4:33     ` Wu Fengguang

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=20110819025406.GA13365@localhost \
    --to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=arighi@develer.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=gthelen@google.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=minchan.kim@gmail.com \
    --cc=vgoyal@redhat.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.