Nikita Danilov writes:
> Some people do, should they suffer? :-)
You - yes. You have used that example as an argument incorrectly.
> Not _all_, only nr_to_write of them
Yes. User thread writes all dirty pages in the system calling
writeback_inodes() and after it tests
if (pages_written >= write_chunk)
or have the user thread wrote more than 32+32/2 pages?
> In current design each thread is responsible for write-out.
Casual thread performs common system work; casual thread is
throttled or frozen by this work.
That is why a constant write_chunk==32+32/2 is used but too
late.
Infinite number of pdflush may be created in current design and
only after extra pdflush thread is exited because other pdflush
processes the device. I have seen 6 pdflush threads during benchmarking
while I have 1 disk only. That is why MAX_PDFLUSH_THREADS is needed in
current design. The patch adds testing to keep off extra pdflush threads
creating.
Summary:
Nikita Danilov writes:
> Wouldn't this interfere with current->backing_dev_info logic?
Proved: the patch does not break that logic.
> Intent of this is to throttle writers, and reduce risk of running oom
Proved: a generator of dirty pages is throttled after patching
too.
The extra throttling is removed. It and parallelism make
performance benefit.
Nikita Danilov writes that in current pdflush thread
> performs page-out even if queue is congested
Proved: New pdflush does the same.
> With your patch, this work is done from pdflush, and won't be
throttled
Proved: pdflush is throttled by device congestion.
> when direct reclaim skips writing dirty pages from tail of the
inactive list
Proved: direct reclaim does not skip inactive list in proposed
design.
> You propose to limit write-out concurrency by MAX_PDFLUSH_THREADS
Proved: the patch adds the line which keeps off creating of
infinite number of pdflush thread. The max limit could be removed in a
next patch.
Leonid
-----Original Message-----
From: Nikita Danilov [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 12:06 AM
To: Ananiev, Leonid I
Cc: Bret Towe; Linux Kernel Mailing List
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: moving dirty pages balancing to pdfludh
entirely
Ananiev, Leonid I writes:
> Nikita Danilov writes:
> > Exactly to the contrary: as I explained to you, if you have more
> devices
> > than pdflush threads
> I do not believe that Bret Towe has more devices than
> MAX_PDFLUSH_THREADS=8.
Some people do, should they suffer? :-)
>
> > See how wbc.nr_to_write is set up by balance_dirty_pages().
> It is number TO write but I said about number after what user has to
> write-out all dirty pages.
Not _all_, only nr_to_write of them:
if (pages_written >= write_chunk)
break; /* We've done our duty
*/
>
> > imagine that MAX_PDFLUSH_THREADS equals 1
> Imagine that CONFIG_NR_CPUS=1 for smp.
> Kernel has a lot of "big enough" constants.
Then why introduce more of them?
In current design each thread is responsible for write-out. This means
that write-out concurrency level scales together with the number of
writers. You propose to limit write-out concurrency by
MAX_PDFLUSH_THREADS. Obviously this is an artificial limit that will be
sub-optimal sometimes.
>
> Leonid
Nikita.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
