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=-15.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable 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 C0839C43460 for ; Sun, 9 May 2021 23:36:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 209C8613D3 for ; Sun, 9 May 2021 23:36:37 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 209C8613D3 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux-foundation.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 3B9776B0070; Sun, 9 May 2021 19:36:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 36A836B0071; Sun, 9 May 2021 19:36:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 258A16B0072; Sun, 9 May 2021 19:36:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0038.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.38]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A5A26B0070 for ; Sun, 9 May 2021 19:36:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin40.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B46A8A2AC for ; Sun, 9 May 2021 23:36:35 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 78123304350.40.3D84D38 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf27.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47A9F80192D4 for ; Sun, 9 May 2021 23:36:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CECBE6101D; Sun, 9 May 2021 23:36:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=linux-foundation.org; s=korg; t=1620603394; bh=J5tl0l1ZOzDBLl5UTcdkIyorm4Fg1VOsMfiBVJvNfMU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=WHlknBbHJMsTjvd0Fq90zNyDfnoi03YlgHNvPfujM6TtosG5B8QrEZCdAVfL/kFYW 2Bx9ceEKkt6/cLdyjfCdXHpFilPxJ+UDu3+IskEN8VStXNh68AsjRtK6rvsKiSKgVp algto3pIPDTUD5D9Z+yADE2JgXZOWr2ONnSa73WA= Date: Sun, 9 May 2021 16:36:33 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Chi Wu Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, tj@kernel.org, Howard Cochran , Miklos Szeredi , Jens Axboe , Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/page-writeback: Fix performance when BDI's share of ratio is 0. Message-Id: <20210509163633.ced3588cb92984c0d3835fc3@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20210428225046.16301-1-wuchi.zero@gmail.com> References: <20210428225046.16301-1-wuchi.zero@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.5.1 (GTK+ 2.24.31; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Server: rspam04 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 47A9F80192D4 Authentication-Results: imf27.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=linux-foundation.org header.s=korg header.b=WHlknBbH; dmarc=none; spf=pass (imf27.hostedemail.com: domain of akpm@linux-foundation.org designates 198.145.29.99 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=akpm@linux-foundation.org X-Stat-Signature: qmqz17qjyq1uygky4hjwcfxuoxaxq7yg Received-SPF: none (linux-foundation.org>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf27; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=mail.kernel.org; client-ip=198.145.29.99 X-HE-DKIM-Result: pass/pass X-HE-Tag: 1620603394-227490 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 Thu, 29 Apr 2021 06:50:46 +0800 Chi Wu wrote: > Fix performance when BDI's share of ratio is 0. > > The issue is similar to commit 74d369443325 ("writeback: Fix > performance regression in wb_over_bg_thresh()"). > > Balance_dirty_pages and the writeback worker will also disagree on > whether writeback when a BDI uses BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT and BDI's share > of the thresh ratio is zero. > > For example, A thread on cpu0 writes 32 pages and then > balance_dirty_pages, it will wake up background writeback and pauses > because wb_dirty > wb->wb_thresh = 0 (share of thresh ratio is zero). > A thread may runs on cpu0 again because scheduler prefers pre_cpu. > Then writeback worker may runs on other cpus(1,2..) which causes the > value of wb_stat(wb, WB_RECLAIMABLE) in wb_over_bg_thresh is 0 and does > not writeback and returns. > > Thus, balance_dirty_pages keeps looping, sleeping and then waking up the > worker who will do nothing. It remains stuck in this state until the > writeback worker hit the right dirty cpu or the dirty pages expire. > > The fix that we should get the wb_stat_sum radically when thresh is low. (optimistically Cc's various people who might remember how this code works) > Signed-off-by: Chi Wu Thanks. I'll add it for some testing and hopefully someone will find the time to review this. > --- > mm/page-writeback.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/page-writeback.c b/mm/page-writeback.c > index 0062d5c57d41..bd7052295246 100644 > --- a/mm/page-writeback.c > +++ b/mm/page-writeback.c > @@ -1945,6 +1945,8 @@ bool wb_over_bg_thresh(struct bdi_writeback *wb) > struct dirty_throttle_control * const gdtc = &gdtc_stor; > struct dirty_throttle_control * const mdtc = mdtc_valid(&mdtc_stor) ? > &mdtc_stor : NULL; > + unsigned long reclaimable; > + unsigned long thresh; > > /* > * Similar to balance_dirty_pages() but ignores pages being written > @@ -1957,8 +1959,13 @@ bool wb_over_bg_thresh(struct bdi_writeback *wb) > if (gdtc->dirty > gdtc->bg_thresh) > return true; > > - if (wb_stat(wb, WB_RECLAIMABLE) > > - wb_calc_thresh(gdtc->wb, gdtc->bg_thresh)) > + thresh = wb_calc_thresh(gdtc->wb, gdtc->bg_thresh); > + if (thresh < 2 * wb_stat_error()) > + reclaimable = wb_stat_sum(wb, WB_RECLAIMABLE); > + else > + reclaimable = wb_stat(wb, WB_RECLAIMABLE); > + > + if (reclaimable > thresh) > return true; > > if (mdtc) { > @@ -1972,8 +1979,13 @@ bool wb_over_bg_thresh(struct bdi_writeback *wb) > if (mdtc->dirty > mdtc->bg_thresh) > return true; > > - if (wb_stat(wb, WB_RECLAIMABLE) > > - wb_calc_thresh(mdtc->wb, mdtc->bg_thresh)) > + thresh = wb_calc_thresh(mdtc->wb, mdtc->bg_thresh); > + if (thresh < 2 * wb_stat_error()) > + reclaimable = wb_stat_sum(wb, WB_RECLAIMABLE); > + else > + reclaimable = wb_stat(wb, WB_RECLAIMABLE); > + > + if (reclaimable > thresh) > return true; > } > > -- > 2.17.1