From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1069C2BA18 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 07:44:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BB88206F5 for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 07:44:57 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 7BB88206F5 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 2C1328E000F; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 03:44:57 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 271A88E000D; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 03:44:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 187628E000F; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 03:44:57 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0148.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.148]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03B668E000D for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 03:44:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin16.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A278B98AB for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 07:44:56 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76676643792.16.group60_e0552124ed4b X-HE-Tag: group60_e0552124ed4b X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 5500 Received: from mail-wm1-f66.google.com (mail-wm1-f66.google.com [209.85.128.66]) by imf48.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 6 Apr 2020 07:44:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm1-f66.google.com with SMTP id c195so7167294wme.1 for ; Mon, 06 Apr 2020 00:44:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=txWInbuQbmkgFxJ+50xnQXLhTEQvs1Jqq2HY6J0OmlU=; b=pfFKq5LugXHNi5v9yWWF1uFoOhwRVG+GXd/SSW7JF/JA0+B9TSe9Einy+axo6amwpl EcvDS3ZdHcvchf3LXwbotqNGjja3RSpyr3rsGaYmXOOwbXQS3XtBx7dk3hHLUxRZJoVo 2CWjepSt+tthDGuK5Q8vC0qbuj+ZeYo9eEmJLU0daMCkdlFsWK2GhRDQ5xdjnuY8Y67P EIv8jCMXMpCRWNBumOm0liYBnsEWbg/9NvgUcL951xgwT/q1isaCwN+b0yluPxksOJkx P68GtmyQYHoTjKLGXVfTtlPn2eO1awWi77/TRP16bpPfdjsyayZGUxVk31lM+VsJbT5u 4v0Q== X-Gm-Message-State: AGi0Pubjn5wkqtKKgbu1lAc/S/Bxu/CcUysZYXhcwrCX0RoeJmyrxZq2 baIAHofbSGSgKtGl31pvPWg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APiQypJ/uoIUR+40nexUPOLJDWAC+iVUJJZll3wmjJET1u6SyNHZsHCm9tunzpCMG0peDimrSZlprA== X-Received: by 2002:a1c:bd8b:: with SMTP id n133mr10454476wmf.175.1586159095092; Mon, 06 Apr 2020 00:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ip-37-188-180-223.eurotel.cz. [37.188.180.223]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id q11sm24372569wme.0.2020.04.06.00.44.53 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 06 Apr 2020 00:44:54 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2020 09:44:53 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: NeilBrown Cc: Trond Myklebust , "Anna.Schumaker@Netapp.com" , Andrew Morton , Jan Kara , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] MM: replace PF_LESS_THROTTLE with PF_LOCAL_THROTTLE Message-ID: <20200406074453.GH19426@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <87tv2b7q72.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <87v9miydai.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <87sghmyd8v.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <20200403151534.GG22681@dhcp22.suse.cz> <878sjcxn7i.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <878sjcxn7i.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Sat 04-04-20 08:40:17, Neil Brown wrote: > On Fri, Apr 03 2020, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > On Thu 02-04-20 10:53:20, Neil Brown wrote: > >> > >> PF_LESS_THROTTLE exists for loop-back nfsd, and a similar need in the > >> loop block driver, where a daemon needs to write to one bdi in > >> order to free up writes queued to another bdi. > >> > >> The daemon sets PF_LESS_THROTTLE and gets a larger allowance of dirty > >> pages, so that it can still dirty pages after other processses have been > >> throttled. > >> > >> This approach was designed when all threads were blocked equally, > >> independently on which device they were writing to, or how fast it was. > >> Since that time the writeback algorithm has changed substantially with > >> different threads getting different allowances based on non-trivial > >> heuristics. This means the simple "add 25%" heuristic is no longer > >> reliable. > >> > >> This patch changes the heuristic to ignore the global limits and > >> consider only the limit relevant to the bdi being written to. This > >> approach is already available for BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT users (fuse) and > >> should not introduce surprises. This has the desired result of > >> protecting the task from the consequences of large amounts of dirty data > >> queued for other devices. > > > > While I understand that you want to have per bdi throttling for those > > "special" files I am still missing how this is going to provide the > > additional room that the additnal 25% gave them previously. I might > > misremember or things have changed (what you mention as non-trivial > > heuristics) but PF_LESS_THROTTLE really needed that room to guarantee a > > forward progress. Care to expan some more on how this is handled now? > > Maybe we do not need it anymore but calling that out explicitly would be > > really helpful. > > The 25% was a means to an end, not an end in itself. > > The problem is that the NFS server needs to be able to write to the > backing filesystem when the dirty memory limits have been reached by > being totally consumed by dirty pages on the NFS filesystem. > > The 25% was just a way of giving an allowance of dirty pages to nfsd > that could not be consumed by processes writing to an NFS filesystem. > i.e. it doesn't need 25% MORE, it needs 25% PRIVATELY. Actually it only > really needs 1 page privately, but a few pages give better throughput > and 25% seemed like a good idea at the time. Yes this part is clear to me. > per-bdi throttling focuses on the "PRIVATELY" (the important bit) and > de-emphasises the 25% (the irrelevant detail). It is still not clear to me how this patch is going to behave when the global dirty throttling is essentially equal to the per-bdi - e.g. there is only a single bdi and now the PF_LOCAL_THROTTLE process doesn't have anything private. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs