Revert the pass-good area introduced in ffd1f609ab ("writeback:
introduce max-pause and pass-good dirty limits") and make the max-pause
area smaller and safe.
This fixes ~30% performance regression in the ext3 data=writeback
fio_mmap_randwrite_64k/fio_mmap_randrw_64k test cases, where there are
12 JBOD disks, on each disk runs 8 concurrent tasks doing reads+writes.
Using deadline scheduler also has a regression, but not that big as CFQ,
so this suggests we have some write starvation.
The test logs show that
- the disks are sometimes under utilized
- global dirty pages sometimes rush high to the pass-good area for
several hundred seconds, while in the mean time some bdi dirty pages
drop to very low value (bdi_dirty << bdi_thresh). Then suddenly the
global dirty pages dropped under global dirty threshold and bdi_dirty
rush very high (for example, 2 times higher than bdi_thresh). During
which time balance_dirty_pages() is not called at all.
So the problems are
1) The random writes progress so slow that they break the assumption of
the max-pause logic that "8 pages per 200ms is typically more than
enough to curb heavy dirtiers".
2) The max-pause logic ignored task_bdi_thresh and thus opens the possibility
for some bdi's to over dirty pages, leading to (bdi_dirty >> bdi_thresh)
and then (bdi_thresh >> bdi_dirty) for others.
3) The higher max-pause/pass-good thresholds somehow leads to the bad
swing of dirty pages.
The fix is to allow the task to slightly dirty over task_bdi_thresh, but
no way to exceed bdi_dirty and/or global dirty_thresh.
Tests show that it fixed the JBOD regression completely (both behavior
and performance), while still being able to cut down large pause times
in balance_dirty_pages() for single-disk cases.
Reported-by: Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Tested-by: Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@intel.com>
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
bb0822954a