summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/mm/percpu-km.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorWu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>2011-11-30 18:08:55 +0100
committerWu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>2011-12-18 07:20:28 +0100
commit7ccb9ad5364d6ac0c803096c67e76a7545cf7a77 (patch)
tree53894333454bca278f20f9c5841dd1b45c384721 /mm/percpu-km.c
parentwriteback: dirty ratelimit - think time compensation (diff)
downloadlinux-7ccb9ad5364d6ac0c803096c67e76a7545cf7a77.tar.xz
linux-7ccb9ad5364d6ac0c803096c67e76a7545cf7a77.zip
writeback: max, min and target dirty pause time
Control the pause time and the call intervals to balance_dirty_pages() with three parameters: 1) max_pause, limited by bdi_dirty and MAX_PAUSE 2) the target pause time, grows with the number of dd tasks and is normally limited by max_pause/2 3) the minimal pause, set to half the target pause and is used to skip short sleeps and accumulate them into bigger ones The typical behaviors after patch: - if ever task_ratelimit is far below dirty_ratelimit, the pause time will remain constant at max_pause and nr_dirtied_pause will be fluctuating with task_ratelimit - in the normal cases, nr_dirtied_pause will remain stable (keep in the same pace with dirty_ratelimit) and the pause time will be fluctuating with task_ratelimit In summary, someone has to fluctuate with task_ratelimit, because task_ratelimit = nr_dirtied_pause / pause We normally prefer a stable nr_dirtied_pause, until reaching max_pause. The notable behavior changes are: - in stable workloads, there will no longer be sudden big trajectory switching of nr_dirtied_pause as concerned by Peter. It will be as smooth as dirty_ratelimit and changing proportionally with it (as always, assuming bdi bandwidth does not fluctuate across 2^N lines, otherwise nr_dirtied_pause will show up in 2+ parallel trajectories) - in the rare cases when something keeps task_ratelimit far below dirty_ratelimit, the smoothness can no longer be retained and nr_dirtied_pause will be "dancing" with task_ratelimit. This fixes a (not that destructive but still not good) bug that dirty_ratelimit gets brought down undesirably <= balanced_dirty_ratelimit is under estimated <= weakly executed task_ratelimit <= pause goes too large and gets trimmed down to max_pause <= nr_dirtied_pause (based on dirty_ratelimit) is set too large <= dirty_ratelimit being much larger than task_ratelimit - introduce min_pause to avoid small pause sleeps - when pause is trimmed down to max_pause, try to compensate it at the next pause time The "refactor" type of changes are: The max_pause equation is slightly transformed to make it slightly more efficient. We now scale target_pause by (N * 10ms) on 2^N concurrent tasks, which is effectively equal to the original scaling max_pause by (N * 20ms) because the original code does implicit target_pause ~= max_pause / 2. Based on the same implicit ratio, target_pause starts with 10ms on 1 dd. CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'mm/percpu-km.c')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions