On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 08:42:01AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> > My vague idea is to
> > - keep the s_io/s_more_io as a FIFO/cyclic writeback dispatching
> > queue.
> > - convert s_dirty to some radix-tree/rbtree based data structure.
> > It would have dual functions: delayed-writeback and
> > clustered-writeback.
> > clustered-writeback:
> > - Use inode number as clue of locality, hence the key for the sorted
> > tree.
> > - Drain some more s_dirty inodes into s_io on every kupdate wakeup,
> > but do it in the ascending order of inode number instead of
> > ->dirtied_when.
> >
> > delayed-writeback:
> > - Make sure that a full scan of the s_dirty tree takes <=30s, i.e.
> > dirty_expire_interval.
>
> I think we should assume a full scan of s_dirty is impossible in the
> presence of concurrent writers. We want to be able to pick a start
> time (right now) and find all the inodes older than that start time.
> New things will come in while we're scanning. But perhaps that's what
> you're saying...
Yeah, I was thinking about elevators :)
Or call it sweeping based on address-hint(inode number).
> At any rate, we've got two types of lists now. One keeps track of age
> and the other two keep track of what is currently being written. I
> would try two things:
>
> 1) s_dirty stays a list for FIFO. s_io becomes a radix tree that
> indexes by inode number (or some arbitrary field the FS can set in the
> inode). Radix tree tags are used to indicate which things in s_io are
> already in progress or are pending (hand waving because I'm not sure
> exactly).
>
> inodes are pulled off s_dirty and the corresponding slot in s_io is
> tagged to indicate IO has started. Any nearby inodes in s_io are also
> sent down.
>
> 2) s_dirty and s_io both become radix trees. s_dirty is indexed by a
> sequence number that corresponds to age. It is treated as a big
> circular indexed list that can wrap around over time. Radix tree tags
> are used both on s_dirty and s_io to flag which inodes are in progress.
It's meaningless to convert s_io to radix tree. Because inodes on s_io
will normally be sent to block layer elevators at the same time.
Also s_dirty holds 30 seconds of inodes, while s_io only 5 seconds.
The more inodes, the more chances of good clustering. That's the
general rule.
s_dirty is the right place to do address-clustering.
As for the dirty_expire_interval parameter on dirty age,
we can apply a simple rule: do one full scan/sweep over the
fs-address-space in every 30s, syncing all inodes encountered,
and sparing those newly dirtied in less than 5s. With that rule,
any inode will get synced after being dirtied for 5-35 seconds.
-fengguang
-
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]
