[PATCH] sched/debug: Take PID namespace into account

upstream commit fc840914e9b07ab4685c195e1e54e58de4f84c03

Emmanuel reported that /proc/sched_debug didn't report the right PIDs
when using namespaces, cure this.

Reported-by: Emmanuel Deloget <emmanuel.deloget@efixo.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20130909110141.GM31370@twins.programming.kicks-ass.net
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Charles Wang <muming.wq@taobao.com>
writeback: balance_dirty_pages(): reduce calls to global_page_state

Backport from commit: e50e37201ae

Reducing the number of times balance_dirty_pages calls global_page_state
reduces the cache references and so improves write performance on a
variety of workloads.

'perf stats' of simple fio write tests shows the reduction in cache
access.  Where the test is fio 'write,mmap,600Mb,pre_read' on AMD AthlonX2
with 3Gb memory (dirty_threshold approx 600 Mb) running each test 10
times, dropping the fasted & slowest values then taking the average &
standard deviation

		average (s.d.) in millions (10^6)
2.6.31-rc8	648.6 (14.6)
+patch		620.1 (16.5)

Achieving this reduction is by dropping clip_bdi_dirty_limit as it rereads
the counters to apply the dirty_threshold and moving this check up into
balance_dirty_pages where it has already read the counters.

Also by rearrange the for loop to only contain one copy of the limit tests
allows the pdflush test after the loop to use the local copies of the
counters rather than rereading them.

In the common case with no throttling it now calls global_page_state 5
fewer times and bdi_stat 2 fewer.

Fengguang:

This patch slightly changes behavior by replacing clip_bdi_dirty_limit()
with the explicit check (nr_reclaimable + nr_writeback >= dirty_thresh) to
avoid exceeding the dirty limit.  Since the bdi dirty limit is mostly
accurate we don't need to do routinely clip.  A simple dirty limit check
would be enough.

The check is necessary because, in principle we should throttle everything
calling balance_dirty_pages() when we're over the total limit, as said by
Peter.

We now set and clear dirty_exceeded not only based on bdi dirty limits,
but also on the global dirty limit.  The global limit check is added in
place of clip_bdi_dirty_limit() for safety and not intended as a behavior
change.  The bdi limits should be tight enough to keep all dirty pages
under the global limit at most time; occasional small exceeding should be
OK though.  The change makes the logic more obvious: the global limit is
the ultimate goal and shall be always imposed.

We may now start background writeback work based on outdated conditions.
That's safe because the bdi flush thread will (and have to) double check
the states.  It reduces overall overheads because the test based on old
states still have good chance to be right.

[akpm@linux-foundation.org] fix uninitialized dirty_exceeded
Signed-off-by: Richard Kennedy <richard@rsk.demon.co.uk>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Acked-by: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>
writeback: avoid unnecessary calculation of bdi dirty thresholds

Backport from commit: 16c4042f089

Split get_dirty_limits() into global_dirty_limits()+bdi_dirty_limit(), so
that the latter can be avoided when under global dirty background
threshold (which is the normal state for most systems).

Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>
writeback: add comment to the dirty limit functions

Backport from commit: 1babe18385

Document global_dirty_limits() and bdi_dirty_limit().

Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>
writeback: account per-bdi accumulated written pages

Backport from commit: f7d2b1ecd0c

Introduce the BDI_WRITTEN counter. It will be used for estimating the
bdi's write bandwidth.

Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>:
Move BDI_WRITTEN accounting into __bdi_writeout_inc().
This will cover and fix fuse, which only calls bdi_writeout_inc().

CC: Michael Rubin <mrubin@google.com>
Reviewed-by: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>

Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>
writeback: bdi write bandwidth estimation

Backport from commit: e98be2d5992

The estimation value will start from 100MB/s and adapt to the real
bandwidth in seconds.

It tries to update the bandwidth only when disk is fully utilized.
Any inactive period of more than one second will be skipped.

The estimated bandwidth will be reflecting how fast the device can
writeout when _fully utilized_, and won't drop to 0 when it goes idle.
The value will remain constant at disk idle time. At busy write time, if
not considering fluctuations, it will also remain high unless be knocked
down by possible concurrent reads that compete for the disk time and
bandwidth with async writes.

The estimation is not done purely in the flusher because there is no
guarantee for write_cache_pages() to return timely to update bandwidth.

The bdi->avg_write_bandwidth smoothing is very effective for filtering
out sudden spikes, however may be a little biased in long term.

The overheads are low because the bdi bandwidth update only occurs at
200ms intervals.

The 200ms update interval is suitable, because it's not possible to get
the real bandwidth for the instance at all, due to large fluctuations.

The NFS commits can be as large as seconds worth of data. One XFS
completion may be as large as half second worth of data if we are going
to increase the write chunk to half second worth of data. In ext4,
fluctuations with time period of around 5 seconds is observed. And there
is another pattern of irregular periods of up to 20 seconds on SSD tests.

That's why we are not only doing the estimation at 200ms intervals, but
also averaging them over a period of 3 seconds and then go further to do
another level of smoothing in avg_write_bandwidth.

CC: Li Shaohua <shaohua.li@intel.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>

Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>
writeback: show bdi write bandwidth in debugfs

Backport from commit: 00821b002df

Add a "BdiWriteBandwidth" entry and indent others in /debug/bdi/*/stats.

btw, increase digital field width to 10, for keeping the possibly
huge BdiWritten number aligned at least for desktop systems.

Impact: this could break user space tools if they are dumb enough to
depend on the number of white spaces.

CC: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>

Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>
writeback: consolidate variable names in balance_dirty_pages()

Backport from commit: 7762741e3af

Introduce

	nr_dirty = NR_FILE_DIRTY + NR_WRITEBACK + NR_UNSTABLE_NFS

in order to simplify many tests in the following patches.

balance_dirty_pages() will eventually care only about the dirty sums
besides nr_writeback.

Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>

Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>
writeback: introduce smoothed global dirty limit

Backport from commit: c42843f2f0

The start of a heavy weight application (ie. KVM) may instantly knock
down determine_dirtyable_memory() if the swap is not enabled or full.
global_dirty_limits() and bdi_dirty_limit() will in turn get global/bdi
dirty thresholds that are _much_ lower than the global/bdi dirty pages.

balance_dirty_pages() will then heavily throttle all dirtiers including
the light ones, until the dirty pages drop below the new dirty thresholds.
During this _deep_ dirty-exceeded state, the system may appear rather
unresponsive to the users.

About "deep" dirty-exceeded: task_dirty_limit() assigns 1/8 lower dirty
threshold to heavy dirtiers than light ones, and the dirty pages will
be throttled around the heavy dirtiers' dirty threshold and reasonably
below the light dirtiers' dirty threshold. In this state, only the heavy
dirtiers will be throttled and the dirty pages are carefully controlled
to not exceed the light dirtiers' dirty threshold. However if the
threshold itself suddenly drops below the number of dirty pages, the
light dirtiers will get heavily throttled.

So introduce global_dirty_limit for tracking the global dirty threshold
with policies

- follow downwards slowly
- follow up in one shot

global_dirty_limit can effectively mask out the impact of sudden drop of
dirtyable memory. It will be used in the next patch for two new type of
dirty limits. Note that the new dirty limits are not going to avoid
throttling the light dirtiers, but could limit their sleep time to 200ms.

Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>

Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>
writeback: introduce max-pause and pass-good dirty limits

Backport from commit: ffd1f609ab1

The max-pause limit helps to keep the sleep time inside
balance_dirty_pages() within MAX_PAUSE=200ms. The 200ms max sleep means
per task rate limit of 8pages/200ms=160KB/s when dirty exceeded, which
normally is enough to stop dirtiers from continue pushing the dirty
pages high, unless there are a sufficient large number of slow dirtiers
(eg. 500 tasks doing 160KB/s will still sum up to 80MB/s, exceeding the
write bandwidth of a slow disk and hence accumulating more and more dirty
pages).

The pass-good limit helps to let go of the good bdi's in the presence of
a blocked bdi (ie. NFS server not responding) or slow USB disk which for
some reason build up a large number of initial dirty pages that refuse
to go away anytime soon.

For example, given two bdi's A and B and the initial state

	bdi_thresh_A = dirty_thresh / 2
	bdi_thresh_B = dirty_thresh / 2
	bdi_dirty_A  = dirty_thresh / 2
	bdi_dirty_B  = dirty_thresh / 2

Then A get blocked, after a dozen seconds

	bdi_thresh_A = 0
	bdi_thresh_B = dirty_thresh
	bdi_dirty_A  = dirty_thresh / 2
	bdi_dirty_B  = dirty_thresh / 2

The (bdi_dirty_B < bdi_thresh_B) test is now useless and the dirty pages
will be effectively throttled by condition (nr_dirty < dirty_thresh).
This has two problems:
(1) we lose the protections for light dirtiers
(2) balance_dirty_pages() effectively becomes IO-less because the
    (bdi_nr_reclaimable > bdi_thresh) test won't be true. This is good
    for IO, but balance_dirty_pages() loses an important way to break
    out of the loop which leads to more spread out throttle delays.

DIRTY_PASSGOOD_AREA can eliminate the above issues. The only problem is,
DIRTY_PASSGOOD_AREA needs to be defined as 2 to fully cover the above
example while this patch uses the more conservative value 8 so as not to
surprise people with too many dirty pages than expected.

The max-pause limit won't noticeably impact the speed dirty pages are
knocked down when there is a sudden drop of global/bdi dirty thresholds.
Because the heavy dirties will be throttled below 160KB/s which is slow
enough. It does help to avoid long dirty throttle delays and especially
will make light dirtiers more responsive.

Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>
squeeze max-pause area and drop pass-good area

Backport from commit: bb0822954aab

Revert the pass-good area introduced in ffd1f609ab10 ("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>
Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>
writeback: account per-bdi accumulated dirtied pages

Backport from commit: c8e28ce049fa

Introduce the BDI_DIRTIED counter. It will be used for estimating the
bdi's dirty bandwidth.

CC: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Michael Rubin <mrubin@google.com>
CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>
writeback: dirty position control

Backport from commit: 6c14ae1e92c7

bdi_position_ratio() provides a scale factor to bdi->dirty_ratelimit, so
that the resulted task rate limit can drive the dirty pages back to the
global/bdi setpoints.

Old scheme is,
                                          |
                           free run area  |  throttle area
  ----------------------------------------+---------------------------->
                                    thresh^                  dirty pages

New scheme is,

  ^ task rate limit
  |
  |            *
  |             *
  |              *
  |[free run]      *      [smooth throttled]
  |                  *
  |                     *
  |                         *
  ..bdi->dirty_ratelimit..........*
  |                               .     *
  |                               .          *
  |                               .              *
  |                               .                 *
  |                               .                    *
  +-------------------------------.-----------------------*------------>
                          setpoint^                  limit^  dirty pages

The slope of the bdi control line should be

1) large enough to pull the dirty pages to setpoint reasonably fast

2) small enough to avoid big fluctuations in the resulted pos_ratio and
   hence task ratelimit

Since the fluctuation range of the bdi dirty pages is typically observed
to be within 1-second worth of data, the bdi control line's slope is
selected to be a linear function of bdi write bandwidth, so that it can
adapt to slow/fast storage devices well.

Assume the bdi control line

	pos_ratio = 1.0 + k * (dirty - bdi_setpoint)

where k is the negative slope.

If targeting for 12.5% fluctuation range in pos_ratio when dirty pages
are fluctuating in range

	[bdi_setpoint - write_bw/2, bdi_setpoint + write_bw/2],

we get slope

	k = - 1 / (8 * write_bw)

Let pos_ratio(x_intercept) = 0, we get the parameter used in code:

	x_intercept = bdi_setpoint + 8 * write_bw

The global/bdi slopes are nicely complementing each other when the
system has only one major bdi (indicated by bdi_thresh ~= thresh):

1) slope of global control line    => scaling to the control scope size
2) slope of main bdi control line  => scaling to the writeout bandwidth

so that

- in memory tight systems, (1) becomes strong enough to squeeze dirty
  pages inside the control scope

- in large memory systems where the "gravity" of (1) for pulling the
  dirty pages to setpoint is too weak, (2) can back (1) up and drive
  dirty pages to bdi_setpoint ~= setpoint reasonably fast.

Unfortunately in JBOD setups, the fluctuation range of bdi threshold
is related to memory size due to the interferences between disks.  In
this case, the bdi slope will be weighted sum of write_bw and bdi_thresh.

Given equations

        span = x_intercept - bdi_setpoint
        k = df/dx = - 1 / span

and the extremum values

        span = bdi_thresh
        dx = bdi_thresh

we get

        df = - dx / span = - 1.0

That means, when bdi_dirty deviates bdi_thresh up, pos_ratio and hence
task ratelimit will fluctuate by -100%.

peter: use 3rd order polynomial for the global control line

CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>
writeback: add bg_threshold parameter to __bdi_update_bandwidth()

Backport from commit: af6a311384b
No behavior change.

Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>
writeback: dirty rate control

Backport from commit: be3ffa276446

It's all about bdi->dirty_ratelimit, which aims to be (write_bw / N)
when there are N dd tasks.

On write() syscall, use bdi->dirty_ratelimit
============================================

    balance_dirty_pages(pages_dirtied)
    {
        task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
        pause = pages_dirtied / task_ratelimit;
        sleep(pause);
    }

On every 200ms, update bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================

    bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit()
    {
        task_ratelimit = bdi->dirty_ratelimit * bdi_position_ratio();
        balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit * write_bw / dirty_rate;
        bdi->dirty_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
    }

Estimation of balanced bdi->dirty_ratelimit
===========================================

balanced task_ratelimit
-----------------------

balance_dirty_pages() needs to throttle tasks dirtying pages such that
the total amount of dirty pages stays below the specified dirty limit in
order to avoid memory deadlocks. Furthermore we desire fairness in that
tasks get throttled proportionally to the amount of pages they dirty.

IOW we want to throttle tasks such that we match the dirty rate to the
writeout bandwidth, this yields a stable amount of dirty pages:

        dirty_rate == write_bw                                          (1)

The fairness requirement gives us:

        task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit
                       == write_bw / N                                  (2)

where N is the number of dd tasks.  We don't know N beforehand, but
still can estimate balanced_dirty_ratelimit within 200ms.

Start by throttling each dd task at rate

        task_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0                               (3)
                         (any non-zero initial value is OK)

After 200ms, we measured

        dirty_rate = # of pages dirtied by all dd's / 200ms
        write_bw   = # of pages written to the disk / 200ms

For the aggressive dd dirtiers, the equality holds

        dirty_rate == N * task_rate
                   == N * task_ratelimit_0                              (4)
Or
        task_ratelimit_0 == dirty_rate / N                              (5)

Now we conclude that the balanced task ratelimit can be estimated by

                                                      write_bw
        balanced_dirty_ratelimit = task_ratelimit_0 * ----------        (6)
                                                      dirty_rate

Because with (4) and (5) we can get the desired equality (1):

                                                       write_bw
        balanced_dirty_ratelimit == (dirty_rate / N) * ----------
                                                       dirty_rate
                                 == write_bw / N

Then using the balanced task ratelimit we can compute task pause times like:

        task_pause = task->nr_dirtied / task_ratelimit

task_ratelimit with position control
------------------------------------

However, while the above gives us means of matching the dirty rate to
the writeout bandwidth, it at best provides us with a stable dirty page
count (assuming a static system). In order to control the dirty page
count such that it is high enough to provide performance, but does not
exceed the specified limit we need another control.

The dirty position control works by extending (2) to

        task_ratelimit = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio           (7)

where pos_ratio is a negative feedback function that subjects to

1) f(setpoint) = 1.0
2) df/dx < 0

That is, if the dirty pages are ABOVE the setpoint, we throttle each
task a bit more HEAVY than balanced_dirty_ratelimit, so that the dirty
pages are created less fast than they are cleaned, thus DROP to the
setpoints (and the reverse).

Based on (7) and the assumption that both dirty_ratelimit and pos_ratio
remains CONSTANT for the past 200ms, we get

        task_ratelimit_0 = balanced_dirty_ratelimit * pos_ratio         (8)

Putting (8) into (6), we get the formula used in
bdi_update_dirty_ratelimit():

                                                write_bw
        balanced_dirty_ratelimit *= pos_ratio * ----------              (9)
                                                dirty_rate

Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>
writeback: stabilize bdi->dirty_ratelimit

Backport from commit: 7381131cbcf7e

There are some imperfections in balanced_dirty_ratelimit.

1) large fluctuations

The dirty_rate used for computing balanced_dirty_ratelimit is merely
averaged in the past 200ms (very small comparing to the 3s estimation
period for write_bw), which makes rather dispersed distribution of
balanced_dirty_ratelimit.

It's pretty hard to average out the singular points by increasing the
estimation period. Considering that the averaging technique will
introduce very undesirable time lags, I give it up totally. (btw, the 3s
write_bw averaging time lag is much more acceptable because its impact
is one-way and therefore won't lead to oscillations.)

The more practical way is filtering -- most singular
balanced_dirty_ratelimit points can be filtered out by remembering some
prev_balanced_rate and prev_prev_balanced_rate. However the more
reliable way is to guard balanced_dirty_ratelimit with task_ratelimit.

2) due to truncates and fs redirties, the (write_bw <=> dirty_rate)
match could become unbalanced, which may lead to large systematical
errors in balanced_dirty_ratelimit. The truncates, due to its possibly
bumpy nature, can hardly be compensated smoothly. So let's face it. When
some over-estimated balanced_dirty_ratelimit brings dirty_ratelimit
high, dirty pages will go higher than the setpoint. task_ratelimit will
in turn become lower than dirty_ratelimit.  So if we consider both
balanced_dirty_ratelimit and task_ratelimit and update dirty_ratelimit
only when they are on the same side of dirty_ratelimit, the systematical
errors in balanced_dirty_ratelimit won't be able to bring
dirty_ratelimit far away.

The balanced_dirty_ratelimit estimation may also be inaccurate near
@limit or @freerun, however is less an issue.

3) since we ultimately want to

- keep the fluctuations of task ratelimit as small as possible
- keep the dirty pages around the setpoint as long time as possible

the update policy used for (2) also serves the above goals nicely:
if for some reason the dirty pages are high (task_ratelimit < dirty_ratelimit),
and dirty_ratelimit is low (dirty_ratelimit < balanced_dirty_ratelimit),
there is no point to bring up dirty_ratelimit in a hurry only to hurt
both the above two goals.

So, we make use of task_ratelimit to limit the update of dirty_ratelimit
in two ways:

1) avoid changing dirty rate when it's against the position control target
   (the adjusted rate will slow down the progress of dirty pages going
   back to setpoint).

2) limit the step size. task_ratelimit is changing values step by step,
   leaving a consistent trace comparing to the randomly jumping
   balanced_dirty_ratelimit. task_ratelimit also has the nice smaller
   errors in stable state and typically larger errors when there are big
   errors in rate.  So it's a pretty good limiting factor for the step
   size of dirty_ratelimit.

Note that bdi->dirty_ratelimit is always tracking balanced_dirty_ratelimit.
task_ratelimit is merely used as a limiting factor.

Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>
writeback: per task dirty rate limit

Backport from commit: 9d823e8f6b1b

Add two fields to task_struct.

1) account dirtied pages in the individual tasks, for accuracy
2) per-task balance_dirty_pages() call intervals, for flexibility

The balance_dirty_pages() call interval (ie. nr_dirtied_pause) will
scale near-sqrt to the safety gap between dirty pages and threshold.

The main problem of per-task nr_dirtied is, if 1k+ tasks start dirtying
pages at exactly the same time, each task will be assigned a large
initial nr_dirtied_pause, so that the dirty threshold will be exceeded
long before each task reached its nr_dirtied_pause and hence call
balance_dirty_pages().

The solution is to watch for the number of pages dirtied on each CPU in
between the calls into balance_dirty_pages(). If it exceeds ratelimit_pages
(3% dirty threshold), force call balance_dirty_pages() for a chance to
set bdi->dirty_exceeded. In normal situations, this safeguarding
condition is not expected to trigger at all.

On the sqrt in dirty_poll_interval():

It will serve as an initial guess when dirty pages are still in the
freerun area.

When dirty pages are floating inside the dirty control scope [freerun,
limit], a followup patch will use some refined dirty poll interval to
get the desired pause time.

   thresh-dirty (MB)    sqrt
		   1      16
		   2      22
		   4      32
		   8      45
		  16      64
		  32      90
		  64     128
		 128     181
		 256     256
		 512     362
		1024     512

The above table means, given 1MB (or 1GB) gap and the dd tasks polling
balance_dirty_pages() on every 16 (or 512) pages, the dirty limit won't
be exceeded as long as there are less than 16 (or 512) concurrent dd's.

So sqrt naturally leads to less overheads and more safe concurrent tasks
for large memory servers, which have large (thresh-freerun) gaps.

peter: keep the per-CPU ratelimit for safeguarding the 1k+ tasks case

CC: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Reviewed-by: Andrea Righi <andrea@betterlinux.com>
Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>
writeback: initialize global_dirty_limit

Backport from commit: 68809c7108b9

This prevents global_dirty_limit from remaining 0 (the initial value)
for long time, since it's only updated in update_dirty_limit() when
above the dirty freerun area.

It will avoid unexpected consequences when some random code use it as a
convenient approximation of the global dirty threshold.

Signed-off-by: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>
writeback: IO-less balance_dirty_pages()

Backport from commit: 143dfe8611a6

As proposed by Chris, Dave and Jan, don't start foreground writeback IO
inside balance_dirty_pages(). Instead, simply let it idle sleep for some
time to throttle the dirtying task. In the mean while, kick off the
per-bdi flusher thread to do background writeback IO.

RATIONALS
=========

- disk seeks on concurrent writeback of multiple inodes (Dave Chinner)

  If every thread doing writes and being throttled start foreground
  writeback, it leads to N IO submitters from at least N different
  inodes at the same time, end up with N different sets of IO being
  issued with potentially zero locality to each other, resulting in
  much lower elevator sort/merge efficiency and hence we seek the disk
  all over the place to service the different sets of IO.
  OTOH, if there is only one submission thread, it doesn't jump between
  inodes in the same way when congestion clears - it keeps writing to
  the same inode, resulting in large related chunks of sequential IOs
  being issued to the disk. This is more efficient than the above
  foreground writeback because the elevator works better and the disk
  seeks less.

- lock contention and cache bouncing on concurrent IO submitters (Dave Chinner)

  With this patchset, the fs_mark benchmark on a 12-drive software RAID0 goes
  from CPU bound to IO bound, freeing "3-4 CPUs worth of spinlock contention".

  * "CPU usage has dropped by ~55%", "it certainly appears that most of
    the CPU time saving comes from the removal of contention on the
    inode_wb_list_lock" (IMHO at least 10% comes from the reduction of
    cacheline bouncing, because the new code is able to call much less
    frequently into balance_dirty_pages() and hence access the global
    page states)

  * the user space "App overhead" is reduced by 20%, by avoiding the
    cacheline pollution by the complex writeback code path

  * "for a ~5% throughput reduction", "the number of write IOs have
    dropped by ~25%", and the elapsed time reduced from 41:42.17 to
    40:53.23.

  * On a simple test of 100 dd, it reduces the CPU %system time from 30% to 3%,
    and improves IO throughput from 38MB/s to 42MB/s.

- IO size too small for fast arrays and too large for slow USB sticks

  The write_chunk used by current balance_dirty_pages() cannot be
  directly set to some large value (eg. 128MB) for better IO efficiency.
  Because it could lead to more than 1 second user perceivable stalls.
  Even the current 4MB write size may be too large for slow USB sticks.
  The fact that balance_dirty_pages() starts IO on itself couples the
  IO size to wait time, which makes it hard to do suitable IO size while
  keeping the wait time under control.

  Now it's possible to increase writeback chunk size proportional to the
  disk bandwidth. In a simple test of 50 dd's on XFS, 1-HDD, 3GB ram,
  the larger writeback size dramatically reduces the seek count to 1/10
  (far beyond my expectation) and improves the write throughput by 24%.

- long block time in balance_dirty_pages() hurts desktop responsiveness

  Many of us may have the experience: it often takes a couple of seconds
  or even long time to stop a heavy writing dd/cp/tar command with
  Ctrl-C or "kill -9".

- IO pipeline broken by bumpy write() progress

  There are a broad class of "loop {read(buf); write(buf);}" applications
  whose read() pipeline will be under-utilized or even come to a stop if
  the write()s have long latencies _or_ don't progress in a constant rate.
  The current threshold based throttling inherently transfers the large
  low level IO completion fluctuations to bumpy application write()s,
  and further deteriorates with increasing number of dirtiers and/or bdi's.

  For example, when doing 50 dd's + 1 remote rsync to an XFS partition,
  the rsync progresses very bumpy in legacy kernel, and throughput is
  improved by 67% by this patchset. (plus the larger write chunk size,
  it will be 93% speedup).

  The new rate based throttling can support 1000+ dd's with excellent
  smoothness, low latency and low overheads.

For the above reasons, it's much better to do IO-less and low latency
pauses in balance_dirty_pages().

Jan Kara, Dave Chinner and me explored the scheme to let
balance_dirty_pages() wait for enough writeback IO completions to
safeguard the dirty limit. However it's found to have two problems:

- in large NUMA systems, the per-cpu counters may have big accounting
  errors, leading to big throttle wait time and jitters.

- NFS may kill large amount of unstable pages with one single COMMIT.
  Because NFS server serves COMMIT with expensive fsync() IOs, it is
  desirable to delay and reduce the number of COMMITs. So it's not
  likely to optimize away such kind of bursty IO completions, and the
  resulted large (and tiny) stall times in IO completion based throttling.

So here is a pause time oriented approach, which tries to control the
pause time in each balance_dirty_pages() invocations, by controlling
the number of pages dirtied before calling balance_dirty_pages(), for
smooth and efficient dirty throttling:

- avoid useless (eg. zero pause time) balance_dirty_pages() calls
- avoid too small pause time (less than   4ms, which burns CPU power)
- avoid too large pause time (more than 200ms, which hurts responsiveness)
- avoid big fluctuations of pause times

It can control pause times at will. The default policy (in a followup
patch) will be to do ~10ms pauses in 1-dd case, and increase to ~100ms
in 1000-dd case.

BEHAVIOR CHANGE
===============

(1) dirty threshold

Users will notice that the applications will get throttled once crossing
the global (background + dirty)/2=15% threshold, and then balanced around
17.5%. Before patch, the behavior is to just throttle it at 20% dirtyable
memory in 1-dd case.

Since the task will be soft throttled earlier than before, it may be
perceived by end users as performance "slow down" if his application
happens to dirty more than 15% dirtyable memory.

(2) smoothness/responsiveness

Users will notice a more responsive system during heavy writeback.
"killall dd" will take effect instantly.

Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>
[PATCH] writeback: limit max dirty pause time

Backport from commit: c8462cc9de9e9

Apply two policies to scale down the max pause time for

1) small number of concurrent dirtiers
2) small memory system (comparing to storage bandwidth)

MAX_PAUSE=200ms may only be suitable for high end servers with lots of
concurrent dirtiers, where the large pause time can reduce much overheads.

Otherwise, smaller pause time is desirable whenever possible, so as to
get good responsiveness and smooth user experiences. It's actually
required for good disk utilization in the case when all the dirty pages
can be synced to disk within MAX_PAUSE=200ms.

Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sha Zhengju <handai.szj@taobao.com>