linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, hch@lst.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] blk-wbt: add general throttling mechanism
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 09:07:08 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <85a891d5-0eec-a051-702f-9aac13e13b03@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161109084034.GY32353@quack2.suse.cz>

On 11/09/2016 01:40 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> So for devices with write cache, you will completely drain the device
>>> before waking anybody waiting to issue new requests. Isn't it too strict?
>>> In particular may_queue() will allow new writers to issue new writes once
>>> we drop below the limit so it can happen that some processes will be
>>> effectively starved waiting in may_queue?
>>
>> It is strict, and perhaps too strict. In testing, it's the only method
>> that's proven to keep the writeback caching devices in check. It will
>> round robin the writers, if we have more, which isn't necessarily a bad
>> thing. Each will get to do a burst of depth writes, then wait for a new
>> one.
>
> Well, I'm more concerned about a situation where one writer does a
> bursty write and blocks sleeping in may_queue(). Another writer
> produces a steady flow of write requests so that never causes the
> write queue to completely drain but that writer also never blocks in
> may_queue() when it starts queueing after write queue has somewhat
> drained because it never submits many requests in parallel. In such
> case the first writer would get starved AFAIU.

I see what you are saying. I can modify the logic to ensure that if we
do have a waiter, we queue up others behind it. That should get rid of
that concern.

> Also I'm not sure why such logic for devices with writeback cache is
> needed. Sure the disk is fast to accept writes but if that causes long
> read latencies, we should scale down the writeback limits so that we
> eventually end up submitting only one write request anyway -
> effectively the same thing as limit=0 - won't we?

Basically we want to avoid getting into that situation. The problem with
write caching is that it takes a while for you to notice that anything
is wrong, and when you do, you are way down in the hole. That causes the
first violations to be pretty bad.

I'm fine with playing with this logic and improving it, but I'd rather
wait for a 2nd series for that.

-- 
Jens Axboe

  reply	other threads:[~2016-11-09 16:07 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-01 21:08 [PATCHSET] Throttled buffered writeback Jens Axboe
2016-11-01 21:08 ` [PATCH 1/8] block: add WRITE_BACKGROUND Jens Axboe
2016-11-02 14:55   ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-11-02 16:22     ` Jens Axboe
2016-11-05 22:27   ` Jan Kara
2016-11-01 21:08 ` [PATCH 2/8] writeback: add wbc_to_write_flags() Jens Axboe
2016-11-02 14:56   ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-11-01 21:08 ` [PATCH 3/8] writeback: mark background writeback as such Jens Axboe
2016-11-02 14:56   ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-11-05 22:26   ` Jan Kara
2016-11-01 21:08 ` [PATCH 4/8] writeback: track if we're sleeping on progress in balance_dirty_pages() Jens Axboe
2016-11-02 14:57   ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-11-02 14:59     ` Jens Axboe
2016-11-08 13:02   ` Jan Kara
2016-11-01 21:08 ` [PATCH 5/8] block: add code to track actual device queue depth Jens Axboe
2016-11-02 14:59   ` Christoph Hellwig
2016-11-02 15:02     ` Jens Axboe
2016-11-02 16:40       ` Johannes Thumshirn
2016-11-05 22:37   ` Jan Kara
2016-11-01 21:08 ` [PATCH 6/8] block: add scalable completion tracking of requests Jens Axboe
2016-11-08 13:30   ` Jan Kara
2016-11-08 15:25     ` Jens Axboe
2016-11-09  9:01       ` Jan Kara
2016-11-09 16:09         ` Jens Axboe
2016-11-09 19:52           ` Jens Axboe
2016-11-10 19:38             ` Jan Kara
2016-11-12  5:19               ` Jens Axboe
2016-11-01 21:08 ` [PATCH 7/8] blk-wbt: add general throttling mechanism Jens Axboe
2016-11-08 13:39   ` Jan Kara
2016-11-08 15:41     ` Jens Axboe
2016-11-09  8:40       ` Jan Kara
2016-11-09 16:07         ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2016-11-09 19:52           ` Jens Axboe
2016-11-10 19:36             ` Jan Kara
2016-11-10  0:00           ` Dave Chinner
2016-11-01 21:08 ` [PATCH 8/8] block: hook up writeback throttling Jens Axboe
2016-11-08 13:42   ` Jan Kara
2016-11-08 15:16     ` Jens Axboe
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2016-10-26 20:52 [PATCHSET] block: buffered " Jens Axboe
2016-10-26 20:52 ` [PATCH 7/8] blk-wbt: add general throttling mechanism Jens Axboe

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=85a891d5-0eec-a051-702f-9aac13e13b03@kernel.dk \
    --to=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).