From: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
"Li, Shaohua" <shaohua.li@intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"richard@rsk.demon.co.uk" <richard@rsk.demon.co.uk>,
"jens.axboe@oracle.com" <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: regression in page writeback
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 13:26:20 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20091002172620.GB8161@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20091002081953.GA14529@localhost>
On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 04:19:53PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > The big writes, if they are contiguous, could take 1-2 seconds
> > > on a very slow, ancient laptop disk, and that will hold up any kind of
> > > small synchornous activities --- such as either a disk read or a firefox-
> > > triggered fsync().
> >
> > Yes, that's a problem. The SYNC/ASYNC elevator queues can help here.
The SYNC/ASYNC queues will partially help, up to the whatever the
largest I/O that can issued as a single chunk times the queue depth
for those disks that support NCQ.
> > There's still the problem of IO submission time != IO completion time,
> > due to fluctuations of randomness and more. However that's a general
> > and unavoidable problem. Both the wbc.timeout scheme and the
> > "wbc.nr_to_write based on estimated throughput" scheme are based on
> > _past_ requests and it's simply impossible to have a 100% accurate
> > scheme. In principle, wbc.timeout will only be inferior at IO startup
> > time. In the steady state of 100% full queue, it is actually estimating
> > the IO throughput implicitly :)
>
> Another difference between wbc.timeout and adaptive wbc.nr_to_write
> is, when there comes many _read_ requests or fsync, these SYNC rw
> requests will significant lower the ASYNC writeback throughput, if
> it's not completely stalled. So with timeout, the inode will be
> aborted with few pages written; with nr_to_write, the inode will be
> written a good number of pages, at the cost of taking up long time.
>
> IMHO the nr_to_write behavior seems more efficient. What do you think?
I agree, adaptively changing nr_to_write seems like the right thing to
do. For bonus points, we could also monitor how often synchronous I/O
operations are happening, allow nr_to_write to go up by some amount if
there aren't many synchronous operations happening at the moment. So
that might be another opportunity to do auto-tuning, although this
might be a hueristic that might need to be configurable for certain
specialized workloads. For many other workloads, the it should be
possible to detect regular pattern of reads and/or synchronous writes,
and if so, use a lower nr_to_write versus if there isn't many
synchronous I/O operations happening on that particular block device.
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-10-02 17:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 78+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-09-22 5:49 Shaohua Li
2009-09-22 6:40 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-22 8:05 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-22 8:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-22 8:24 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-22 8:32 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-22 8:51 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-22 8:52 ` Richard Kennedy
2009-09-22 9:05 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-22 11:41 ` Shaohua Li
2009-09-22 15:52 ` Chris Mason
2009-09-23 0:22 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-23 0:54 ` Andrew Morton
2009-09-23 1:17 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-23 1:27 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-23 1:28 ` Andrew Morton
2009-09-23 1:32 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-23 1:47 ` Andrew Morton
2009-09-23 2:01 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-23 2:09 ` Andrew Morton
2009-09-23 3:07 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-23 1:45 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-23 1:59 ` Andrew Morton
2009-09-23 2:26 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-23 2:36 ` Andrew Morton
2009-09-23 2:49 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-23 2:56 ` Andrew Morton
2009-09-23 3:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-23 3:10 ` Shaohua Li
2009-09-23 3:14 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-23 3:25 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-23 14:00 ` Chris Mason
2009-09-24 3:15 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-24 12:10 ` Chris Mason
2009-09-25 3:26 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-25 0:11 ` Dave Chinner
2009-09-25 0:38 ` Chris Mason
2009-09-25 5:04 ` Dave Chinner
2009-09-25 6:45 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-28 1:07 ` Dave Chinner
2009-09-28 7:15 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-28 13:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-09-28 14:07 ` Theodore Tso
2009-09-30 5:26 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-30 5:32 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-10-01 22:17 ` Jan Kara
2009-10-02 3:27 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-10-06 12:55 ` Jan Kara
2009-10-06 13:18 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-30 14:11 ` Theodore Tso
2009-10-01 15:14 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-10-01 21:54 ` Theodore Tso
2009-10-02 2:55 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-10-02 8:19 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-10-02 17:26 ` Theodore Tso [this message]
2009-10-03 6:10 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-29 2:32 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-29 14:00 ` Chris Mason
2009-09-29 14:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-09-29 0:15 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-28 14:25 ` Chris Mason
2009-09-29 23:39 ` Dave Chinner
2009-09-30 1:30 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-25 12:06 ` Chris Mason
2009-09-25 3:19 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-26 1:47 ` Dave Chinner
2009-09-26 3:02 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-23 9:19 ` Richard Kennedy
2009-09-23 9:23 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-09-23 9:37 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-23 10:30 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-23 6:41 ` Shaohua Li
2009-09-22 10:49 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-22 11:50 ` Shaohua Li
2009-09-22 13:39 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-23 1:52 ` Shaohua Li
2009-09-23 4:00 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-09-25 6:14 ` Wu Fengguang
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20091002172620.GB8161@mit.edu \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=richard@rsk.demon.co.uk \
--cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome