lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 7/8] blk-wbt: add general throttling mechanism
On Tue, Nov 08 2016, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 01-11-16 15:08:50, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > We can hook this up to the block layer, to help throttle buffered
> > writes.
> >
> > wbt registers a few trace points that can be used to track what is
> > happening in the system:
> >
> > wbt_lat: 259:0: latency 2446318
> > wbt_stat: 259:0: rmean=2446318, rmin=2446318, rmax=2446318, rsamples=1,
> > wmean=518866, wmin=15522, wmax=5330353, wsamples=57
> > wbt_step: 259:0: step down: step=1, window=72727272, background=8, normal=16, max=32
> >
> > This shows a sync issue event (wbt_lat) that exceeded it's time. wbt_stat
> > dumps the current read/write stats for that window, and wbt_step shows a
> > step down event where we now scale back writes. Each trace includes the
> > device, 259:0 in this case.
>
> Just one serious question and one nit below:
>
> > +void __wbt_done(struct rq_wb *rwb, enum wbt_flags wb_acct)
> > +{
> > + struct rq_wait *rqw;
> > + int inflight, limit;
> > +
> > + if (!(wb_acct & WBT_TRACKED))
> > + return;
> > +
> > + rqw = get_rq_wait(rwb, wb_acct & WBT_KSWAPD);
> > + inflight = atomic_dec_return(&rqw->inflight);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * wbt got disabled with IO in flight. Wake up any potential
> > + * waiters, we don't have to do more than that.
> > + */
> > + if (unlikely(!rwb_enabled(rwb))) {
> > + rwb_wake_all(rwb);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * If the device does write back caching, drop further down
> > + * before we wake people up.
> > + */
> > + if (rwb->wc && !wb_recent_wait(rwb))
> > + limit = 0;
> > + else
> > + limit = rwb->wb_normal;
>
> So for devices with write cache, you will completely drain the device
> before waking anybody waiting to issue new requests. Isn't it too strict?
> In particular may_queue() will allow new writers to issue new writes once
> we drop below the limit so it can happen that some processes will be
> effectively starved waiting in may_queue?

It is strict, and perhaps too strict. In testing, it's the only method
that's proven to keep the writeback caching devices in check. It will
round robin the writers, if we have more, which isn't necessarily a bad
thing. Each will get to do a burst of depth writes, then wait for a new
one.

> > + case LAT_UNKNOWN:
> > + if (++rwb->unknown_cnt < RWB_UNKNOWN_BUMP)
> > + break;
> > + /*
> > + * We get here for two reasons:
> > + *
> > + * 1) We previously scaled reduced depth, and we currently
> > + * don't have a valid read/write sample. For that case,
> > + * slowly return to center state (step == 0).
> > + * 2) We started a the center step, but don't have a valid
> > + * read/write sample, but we do have writes going on.
> > + * Allow step to go negative, to increase write perf.
> > + */
>
> I think part 2) of the comment now belongs to LAT_UNKNOWN_WRITES label.

Indeed, that got moved around a bit, I'll fix that up.

--
Jens Axboe

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-08 16:42    [W:0.067 / U:1.152 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site