Re: [PATCH] bdi flusher should not be throttled here when it fall into buddy slow path

On 20.10.2016 15:38, zhouxianr...@huawei.com wrote: > From: z00281421 > > The bdi flusher should be throttled only depends on > own bdi and is decoupled with others. > > separate PGDAT_WRITEBACK into PGDAT_ANON_WRITEBACK and > PGDAT_FILE_WRITEBACK avoid scanning

Re: [PATCH] bdi flusher should not be throttled here when it fall into buddy slow path

On 20.10.2016 15:38, zhouxianr...@huawei.com wrote: > From: z00281421 > > The bdi flusher should be throttled only depends on > own bdi and is decoupled with others. > > separate PGDAT_WRITEBACK into PGDAT_ANON_WRITEBACK and > PGDAT_FILE_WRITEBACK avoid scanning anon lru and it is ok > then

Re: [PATCH] bdi flusher should not be throttled here when it fall into buddy slow path

On Thu 20-10-16 20:38:05, zhouxianr...@huawei.com wrote: > From: z00281421 > > The bdi flusher should be throttled only depends on > own bdi and is decoupled with others. > > separate PGDAT_WRITEBACK into PGDAT_ANON_WRITEBACK and > PGDAT_FILE_WRITEBACK avoid

Re: [PATCH] bdi flusher should not be throttled here when it fall into buddy slow path

On Thu 20-10-16 20:38:05, zhouxianr...@huawei.com wrote: > From: z00281421 > > The bdi flusher should be throttled only depends on > own bdi and is decoupled with others. > > separate PGDAT_WRITEBACK into PGDAT_ANON_WRITEBACK and > PGDAT_FILE_WRITEBACK avoid scanning anon lru and it is ok >

[PATCH] bdi flusher should not be throttled here when it fall into buddy slow path

From: z00281421 The bdi flusher should be throttled only depends on own bdi and is decoupled with others. separate PGDAT_WRITEBACK into PGDAT_ANON_WRITEBACK and PGDAT_FILE_WRITEBACK avoid scanning anon lru and it is ok then throttled on file WRITEBACK. i think

[PATCH] bdi flusher should not be throttled here when it fall into buddy slow path

From: z00281421 The bdi flusher should be throttled only depends on own bdi and is decoupled with others. separate PGDAT_WRITEBACK into PGDAT_ANON_WRITEBACK and PGDAT_FILE_WRITEBACK avoid scanning anon lru and it is ok then throttled on file WRITEBACK. i think above may be not right.

Re: [PATCH] bdi flusher should not be throttled here when it fall into buddy slow path

On Tue 18-10-16 19:08:05, zhouxianrong wrote: > Call trace: > [] __switch_to+0x80/0x98 > [] __schedule+0x314/0x854 > [] schedule+0x48/0xa4 > [] schedule_timeout+0x158/0x2c8 > [] io_schedule_timeout+0xbc/0x14c > [] wait_iff_congested+0x1d4/0x1ec > [] shrink_inactive_list+0x530/0x760 > []

Re: [PATCH] bdi flusher should not be throttled here when it fall into buddy slow path

On Tue 18-10-16 19:08:05, zhouxianrong wrote: > Call trace: > [] __switch_to+0x80/0x98 > [] __schedule+0x314/0x854 > [] schedule+0x48/0xa4 > [] schedule_timeout+0x158/0x2c8 > [] io_schedule_timeout+0xbc/0x14c > [] wait_iff_congested+0x1d4/0x1ec > [] shrink_inactive_list+0x530/0x760 > []

Re: [PATCH] bdi flusher should not be throttled here when it fall into buddy slow path

Call trace: [] __switch_to+0x80/0x98 [] __schedule+0x314/0x854 [] schedule+0x48/0xa4 [] schedule_timeout+0x158/0x2c8 [] io_schedule_timeout+0xbc/0x14c [] wait_iff_congested+0x1d4/0x1ec [] shrink_inactive_list+0x530/0x760 [] shrink_lruvec+0x534/0x76c [] shrink_zone+0x88/0x1b8 []

Re: [PATCH] bdi flusher should not be throttled here when it fall into buddy slow path

Call trace: [] __switch_to+0x80/0x98 [] __schedule+0x314/0x854 [] schedule+0x48/0xa4 [] schedule_timeout+0x158/0x2c8 [] io_schedule_timeout+0xbc/0x14c [] wait_iff_congested+0x1d4/0x1ec [] shrink_inactive_list+0x530/0x760 [] shrink_lruvec+0x534/0x76c [] shrink_zone+0x88/0x1b8 []

Re: [PATCH] bdi flusher should not be throttled here when it fall into buddy slow path

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 03:12:45PM +0800, zhouxianr...@huawei.com wrote: > From: z00281421 > > bdi flusher may enter page alloc slow path due to writepage and kmalloc. > in that case the flusher as a direct reclaimer should not be throttled here > because it can

Re: [PATCH] bdi flusher should not be throttled here when it fall into buddy slow path

On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 03:12:45PM +0800, zhouxianr...@huawei.com wrote: > From: z00281421 > > bdi flusher may enter page alloc slow path due to writepage and kmalloc. > in that case the flusher as a direct reclaimer should not be throttled here > because it can not to reclaim clean file pages

Re: [PATCH] bdi flusher should not be throttled here when it fall into buddy slow path

> @@ -1908,7 +1908,7 @@ void wb_workfn(struct work_struct *work) > long pages_written; > > set_worker_desc("flush-%s", dev_name(wb->bdi->dev)); > - current->flags |= PF_SWAPWRITE; If flags carries PF_LESS_THROTTLE before modified, then you have to restore it. > +

Re: [PATCH] bdi flusher should not be throttled here when it fall into buddy slow path

> @@ -1908,7 +1908,7 @@ void wb_workfn(struct work_struct *work) > long pages_written; > > set_worker_desc("flush-%s", dev_name(wb->bdi->dev)); > - current->flags |= PF_SWAPWRITE; If flags carries PF_LESS_THROTTLE before modified, then you have to restore it. > +

[PATCH] bdi flusher should not be throttled here when it fall into buddy slow path

From: z00281421 bdi flusher may enter page alloc slow path due to writepage and kmalloc. in that case the flusher as a direct reclaimer should not be throttled here because it can not to reclaim clean file pages or anaonymous pages for next moment; furthermore

[PATCH] bdi flusher should not be throttled here when it fall into buddy slow path

From: z00281421 bdi flusher may enter page alloc slow path due to writepage and kmalloc. in that case the flusher as a direct reclaimer should not be throttled here because it can not to reclaim clean file pages or anaonymous pages for next moment; furthermore writeback rate of dirty pages