diff options
author | Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> | 2011-08-16 13:37:14 -0600 |
---|---|---|
committer | Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com> | 2011-08-19 22:42:07 +0800 |
commit | bb0822954aab7d23a3f902c2a103ee0242f6046e (patch) | |
tree | 3049962f0ecc05eea4b2b4ef5480b6708bc74ce7 /mm | |
parent | 93ee7a9340d64f20295aacc3fb6a22b759323280 (diff) |
squeeze max-pause area and drop pass-good area
Revert the pass-good area introduced in ffd1f609ab10 ("writeback:
introduce max-pause and pass-good dirty limits") and make the max-pause
area smaller and safe.
This fixes ~30% performance regression in the ext3 data=writeback
fio_mmap_randwrite_64k/fio_mmap_randrw_64k test cases, where there are
12 JBOD disks, on each disk runs 8 concurrent tasks doing reads+writes.
Using deadline scheduler also has a regression, but not that big as CFQ,
so this suggests we have some write starvation.
The test logs show that
- the disks are sometimes under utilized
- global dirty pages sometimes rush high to the pass-good area for
several hundred seconds, while in the mean time some bdi dirty pages
drop to very low value (bdi_dirty << bdi_thresh). Then suddenly the
global dirty pages dropped under global dirty threshold and bdi_dirty
rush very high (for example, 2 times higher than bdi_thresh). During
which time balance_dirty_pages() is not called at all.
So the problems are
1) The random writes progress so slow that they break the assumption of
the max-pause logic that "8 pages per 200ms is typically more than
enough to curb heavy dirtiers".
2) The max-pause logic ignored task_bdi_thresh and thus opens the possibility
for some bdi's to over dirty pages, leading to (bdi_dirty >> bdi_thresh)
and then (bdi_thresh >> bdi_dirty) for others.
3) The higher max-pause/pass-good thresholds somehow leads to the bad
swing of dirty pages.
The fix is to allow the task to slightly dirty over task_bdi_thresh, but
no way to exceed bdi_dirty and/or global dirty_thresh.
Tests show that it fixed the JBOD regression completely (both behavior
and performance), while still being able to cut down large pause times
in balance_dirty_pages() for single-disk cases.
Reported-by: Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Tested-by: Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'mm')
-rw-r--r-- | mm/page-writeback.c | 15 |
1 files changed, 2 insertions, 13 deletions
diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c index d1960744f881..0e309cd1b5b9 100644 --- a/mm/page-writeback.c +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c @@ -754,21 +754,10 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping, * 200ms is typically more than enough to curb heavy dirtiers; * (b) the pause time limit makes the dirtiers more responsive. */ - if (nr_dirty < dirty_thresh + - dirty_thresh / DIRTY_MAXPAUSE_AREA && + if (nr_dirty < dirty_thresh && + bdi_dirty < (task_bdi_thresh + bdi_thresh) / 2 && time_after(jiffies, start_time + MAX_PAUSE)) break; - /* - * pass-good area. When some bdi gets blocked (eg. NFS server - * not responding), or write bandwidth dropped dramatically due - * to concurrent reads, or dirty threshold suddenly dropped and - * the dirty pages cannot be brought down anytime soon (eg. on - * slow USB stick), at least let go of the good bdi's. - */ - if (nr_dirty < dirty_thresh + - dirty_thresh / DIRTY_PASSGOOD_AREA && - bdi_dirty < bdi_thresh) - break; /* * Increase the delay for each loop, up to our previous |