On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 04:42:48PM +0200, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> The maximum number of dirty pages that exist in the system at any time
> is determined by a number of pages considered dirtyable and a
> user-configured percentage of those, or an absolute number in bytes.
It's explanation of old approach.
> This number of dirtyable pages is the sum of memory provided by all
> the zones in the system minus their lowmem reserves and high
> watermarks, so that the system can retain a healthy number of free
> pages without having to reclaim dirty pages.
It's a explanation of new approach.
> But there is a flaw in that we have a zoned page allocator which does
> not care about the global state but rather the state of individual
> memory zones. And right now there is nothing that prevents one zone
> from filling up with dirty pages while other zones are spared, which
> frequently leads to situations where kswapd, in order to restore the
> watermark of free pages, does indeed have to write pages from that
> zone's LRU list. This can interfere so badly with IO from the flusher
> threads that major filesystems (btrfs, xfs, ext4) mostly ignore write
> requests from reclaim already, taking away the VM's only possibility
> to keep such a zone balanced, aside from hoping the flushers will soon
> clean pages from that zone.
It's a explanation of old approach, again!
Shoudn't we move above phrase of new approach into below?
> Enter per-zone dirty limits. They are to a zone's dirtyable memory
> what the global limit is to the global amount of dirtyable memory, and
> try to make sure that no single zone receives more than its fair share
> of the globally allowed dirty pages in the first place. As the number
> of pages considered dirtyable exclude the zones' lowmem reserves and
> high watermarks, the maximum number of dirty pages in a zone is such
> that the zone can always be balanced without requiring page cleaning.
> As this is a placement decision in the page allocator and pages are
> dirtied only after the allocation, this patch allows allocators to
> pass __GFP_WRITE when they know in advance that the page will be
> written to and become dirty soon. The page allocator will then
> attempt to allocate from the first zone of the zonelist - which on
> NUMA is determined by the task's NUMA memory policy - that has not
> exceeded its dirty limit.
> At first glance, it would appear that the diversion to lower zones can
> increase pressure on them, but this is not the case. With a full high
> zone, allocations will be diverted to lower zones eventually, so it is
> more of a shift in timing of the lower zone allocations. Workloads
> that previously could fit their dirty pages completely in the higher
> zone may be forced to allocate from lower zones, but the amount of
> pages that 'spill over' are limited themselves by the lower zones'
> dirty constraints, and thus unlikely to become a problem.
That's a good justification.
> For now, the problem of unfair dirty page distribution remains for
> NUMA configurations where the zones allowed for allocation are in sum
> not big enough to trigger the global dirty limits, wake up the flusher
> threads and remedy the situation. Because of this, an allocation that
> could not succeed on any of the considered zones is allowed to ignore
> the dirty limits before going into direct reclaim or even failing the
> allocation, until a future patch changes the global dirty throttling
> and flusher thread activation so that they take individual zone states
> into account.
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <jweiner@xxxxxxxxxx>
Otherwise, looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@xxxxxxxxx>