Re: [PATCH 14/17] writeback: make writeback_control.nr_to_writestraight

[Wu Fengguang]

Dave,

> > > >  		spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> > > >  		spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
> > > >  		iput(inode);
> > > >  		cond_resched();
> > > >  		spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
> > > > -		if (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0)
> > > > -			return 1;
> > > > +		/*
> > > > +		 * bail out to wb_writeback() often enough to check
> > > > +		 * background threshold and other termination conditions.
> > > > +		 */
> > > > +		if (wrote >= MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES)
> > > > +			break;
> > > 
> > > Why do this so often? If you are writing large files, it will be
> > > once every writeback_single_inode() call that you bail. Seems rather
> > > inefficient to me to go back to the top level loop just to check for
> > > more work when we already know we have more work to do because
> > > there's still inodes on b_io....
> > 
> > (answering the below comments together)
> > 
> > For large files, it's exactly the same behavior as in the old
> > wb_writeback(), which sets .nr_to_write = MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES.
> > 
> > So it's not "more inefficient" than the original code.
> 
> I didn't say that. I said it "seems rather inefficient" as a direct
> comment on the restructured code. We don't need to check the high
> level loop until we've finished processing b_io - the existing code
> did that to get nr_to_write updated, but now we've changed it so we
> don't refill b_io until it is empty, so any tim ewe loop back to the
> top, we're just going to start from the same point that we were at
> deep in the loop itself.
> 
> That is the current code does:
> 
> 
> 	wb_writeback {
> 		wbc->nr_to_write = MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES
> 		writeback_inodes_wb {
> 			queue_io(expired)
> 			writeback_inodes {
> 				writeback_single_inode
> 			} until (wbc->nr_to_write <= 0)
> 		}
> 	}
> 
> The new code does:
> 
> 	wb_writeback {
> 		writeback_inodes_wb {
> 			if (b_io empty)
> 				queue_io(expired)
> 			writeback_sb_inodes {
> 				wbc->nr_to_write = MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES
> 				wrote = writeback_single_inode
> 				if (wrote >= MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES)
> 					break;
> 			} until (b_io empty)
> 		}
> 	}
> 
> Which is a very different inner loop structure because now small
> inodes that write less than MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES will not cause the
> inner loop to exit until b_io empties.

Note that the wrote pages/inodes will be accumulated
__writeback_inodes_wb()/writeback_sb_inodes(). So even if it's all
small files, it will bail to wb_writeback() as soon as the total
number of written pages/inodes exceeds 1024.

> However, one large file will
> cause the inner loop to exit, go all the way back up to
> wb_writeback(), which will immeidately come back down into
> writeback_inodes() and start working on an _unchanged b_io list_.

...So there is no much difference between small/large files.

> My point is that breaking out of the inner loop like this is
> pointless. Especially if all we have is inodes with >1024 dirty
> pages because of all the unnecessary extra work breaking out of the
> inner loop entails.

You are right and I'm fully aware of your point at the very beginning. 
I didn't optimize it because "well it looks enough changes and there's
the larger write chunk size patch queued to fix this inefficiency"...

> > For balance_dirty_pages(), it may change behavior by splitting one
> > 16MB write to four 4MB writes.
> 
> balance_dirty_pages() typically askes for 1536 pages to be written
> back, so I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from.

Sorry 16MB is an imaginary number..  The normal write_chunk is 6MB.

> > However the good side could be less
> > throttle latency.
> > 
> > The fix is to do IO-less balance_dirty_pages() and do larger write
> > chunk size (around half write bandwidth). Then we get reasonable good
> > bail frequent as well as IO efficiency.
> 
> We're not getting that with this patch set, though, and so the
> change as proposed needs to work correctly without them.

OK, let's fix it now by bailing on every 100ms:

--- linux-next.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c	2011-05-16 19:27:51.000000000 +0800
+++ linux-next/fs/fs-writeback.c	2011-05-16 19:36:40.000000000 +0800
@@ -562,6 +562,7 @@ static long writeback_sb_inodes(struct s
 		.range_start		= 0,
 		.range_end		= LLONG_MAX,
 	};
+	unsigned long start_time = jiffies;
 	long write_chunk;
 	long wrote = 0;  /* count both pages and inodes */
 
@@ -624,10 +625,12 @@ static long writeback_sb_inodes(struct s
 		 * bail out to wb_writeback() often enough to check
 		 * background threshold and other termination conditions.
 		 */
-		if (wrote >= MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES)
-			break;
-		if (work->nr_pages <= 0)
-			break;
+		if (wrote) {
+			if (jiffies - start_time > HZ / 10UL)
+				break;
+			if (work->nr_pages <= 0)
+				break;
+		}
 	}
 	return wrote;
 }
@@ -635,6 +638,7 @@ static long writeback_sb_inodes(struct s
 static long __writeback_inodes_wb(struct bdi_writeback *wb,
 				  struct wb_writeback_work *work)
 {
+	unsigned long start_time = jiffies;
 	long wrote = 0;
 
 	while (!list_empty(&wb->b_io)) {
@@ -648,10 +652,12 @@ static long __writeback_inodes_wb(struct
 		wrote += writeback_sb_inodes(sb, wb, work);
 		drop_super(sb);
 
-		if (wrote >= MAX_WRITEBACK_PAGES)
-			break;
-		if (work->nr_pages <= 0)
-			break;
+		if (wrote) {
+			if (jiffies - start_time > HZ / 10UL)
+				break;
+			if (work->nr_pages <= 0)
+				break;
+		}
 	}
 	/* Leave any unwritten inodes on b_io */
 	return wrote;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/