From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E03956B007B for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 00:10:27 -0400 (EDT) Received: from m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (unknown [10.0.50.71]) by fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7A8B3EE0B5 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:10:23 +0900 (JST) Received: from smail (m1 [127.0.0.1]) by outgoing.m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB5B645DE5B for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:10:23 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp [10.0.50.91]) by m1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9BCE945DE56 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:10:23 +0900 (JST) Received: from s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E174EF8005 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:10:23 +0900 (JST) Received: from ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com (ml13.s.css.fujitsu.com [10.240.81.133]) by s1.gw.fujitsu.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4479C1DB8046 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:10:23 +0900 (JST) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 13:03:15 +0900 From: KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 11/12] writeback: make background writeback cgroup aware Message-Id: <20110608130315.0a365dbb.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: References: <1307117538-14317-1-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com> <1307117538-14317-12-git-send-email-gthelen@google.com> <20110607193835.GD26965@redhat.com> <20110607210540.GB30919@redhat.com> <20110608091815.fdef924d.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Greg Thelen Cc: Vivek Goyal , Andrew Morton , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , containers@lists.osdl.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Andrea Righi , Balbir Singh , Daisuke Nishimura , Minchan Kim , Johannes Weiner , Ciju Rajan K , David Rientjes , Wu Fengguang , Dave Chinner On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 21:02:21 -0700 Greg Thelen wrote: > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 5:18 PM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki > wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Jun 2011 17:05:40 -0400 > > Vivek Goyal wrote: > > > >> On Tue, Jun 07, 2011 at 01:43:08PM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote: > >> > Vivek Goyal writes: > >> > > >> > > On Fri, Jun 03, 2011 at 09:12:17AM -0700, Greg Thelen wrote: > >> > >> When the system is under background dirty memory threshold but a cgroup > >> > >> is over its background dirty memory threshold, then only writeback > >> > >> inodes associated with the over-limit cgroup(s). > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > [..] > >> > >> -static inline bool over_bground_thresh(void) > >> > >> +static inline bool over_bground_thresh(struct bdi_writeback *wb, > >> > >> + A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A struct writeback_control *wbc) > >> > >> A { > >> > >> A A A A A unsigned long background_thresh, dirty_thresh; > >> > >> > >> > >> A A A A A global_dirty_limits(&background_thresh, &dirty_thresh); > >> > >> > >> > >> - A A A A return (global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) + > >> > >> - A A A A A A A A global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS) > background_thresh); > >> > >> + A A A A if (global_page_state(NR_FILE_DIRTY) + > >> > >> + A A A A A A global_page_state(NR_UNSTABLE_NFS) > background_thresh) { > >> > >> + A A A A A A A A wbc->for_cgroup = 0; > >> > >> + A A A A A A A A return true; > >> > >> + A A A A } > >> > >> + > >> > >> + A A A A wbc->for_cgroup = 1; > >> > >> + A A A A wbc->shared_inodes = 1; > >> > >> + A A A A return mem_cgroups_over_bground_dirty_thresh(); > >> > >> A } > >> > > > >> > > Hi Greg, > >> > > > >> > > So all the logic of writeout from mem cgroup works only if system is > >> > > below background limit. The moment we cross background limit, looks > >> > > like we will fall back to existing way of writting inodes? > >> > > >> > Correct. A If the system is over its background limit then the previous > >> > cgroup-unaware background writeback occurs. A I think of the system > >> > limits as those of the root cgroup. A If the system is over the global > >> > limit than all cgroups are eligible for writeback. A In this situation > >> > the current code does not distinguish between cgroups over or under > >> > their dirty background limit. > >> > > >> > Vivek Goyal writes: > >> > > If yes, then from design point of view it is little odd that as long > >> > > as we are below background limit, we share the bdi between different > >> > > cgroups. The moment we are above background limit, we fall back to > >> > > algorithm of sharing the disk among individual inodes and forget > >> > > about memory cgroups. Kind of awkward. > >> > > > >> > > This kind of cgroup writeback I think will atleast not solve the problem > >> > > for CFQ IO controller, as we fall back to old ways of writting back inodes > >> > > the moment we cross dirty ratio. > >> > > >> > It might make more sense to reverse the order of the checks in the > >> > proposed over_bground_thresh(): the new version would first check if any > >> > memcg are over limit; assuming none are over limit, then check global > >> > limits. A Assuming that the system is over its background limit and some > >> > cgroups are also over their limits, then the over limit cgroups would > >> > first be written possibly getting the system below its limit. A Does this > >> > address your concern? > >> > >> Do you treat root group also as any other cgroup? If no, then above logic > >> can lead to issue of starvation of root group inode. Or unfair writeback. > >> So I guess it will be important to treat root group same as other groups. > >> > > > > As far as I can say, you should not place programs onto ROOT cgroups if you need > > performance isolation. > > Agreed. > > > From the code, I think if the system hits dirty_ratio, "1" bit of bitmap should be > > set and background writeback can work for ROOT cgroup seamlessly. > > > > Thanks, > > -Kame > > Not quite. The proposed patches do not set the "1" bit (css_id of > root is 1). mem_cgroup_balance_dirty_pages() (from patch 10/12) > introduces the following balancing loop: > + /* balance entire ancestry of current's mem. */ > + for (; mem_cgroup_has_dirty_limit(mem); mem = > parent_mem_cgroup(mem)) { > > The loop terminates when mem_cgroup_has_dirty_limit() is called for > the root cgroup. The bitmap is set in the body of the loop. So the > root cgroup's bit (bit 1) will never be set in the bitmap. However, I > think the effect is the same. The proposed changes in this patch > (11/12) have background writeback first checking if the system is over > limit and if yes, then b_dirty inodes from any cgroup written. This > means that a small system background limit with an over-{fg or > bg}-limit cgroup could cause other cgroups that are not over their > limit to have their inodes written back. In an system-over-limit > situation normal system-wide bdi writeback is used (writing inodes in > b_dirty order). For those who want isolation, a simple rule to avoid > this is to ensure that that sum of all cgroup background_limits is > less than the system background limit. > Hmm, should we add the rule ? How about disallowing to set dirty_ratio bigger than system's one ? Thanks, -Kame -- 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: email@kvack.org