sync: don't block the flusher thread waiting on IO

When sync does it's WB_SYNC_ALL writeback, it issues data Io and
then immediately waits for IO completion. This is done in the
context of the flusher thread, and hence completely ties up the
flusher thread for the backing device until all the dirty inodes
have been synced. On filesystems that are dirtying inodes constantly
and quickly, this means the flusher thread can be tied up for
minutes per sync call and hence badly affect system level write IO
performance as the page cache cannot be cleaned quickly.

We already have a wait loop for IO completion for sync(2), so cut
this out of the flusher thread and delegate it to wait_sb_inodes().
Hence we can do rapid IO submission, and then wait for it all to
complete.

Effect of sync on fsmark before the patch:

FSUse%        Count         Size    Files/sec     App Overhead
.....
     0       640000         4096      35154.6          1026984
     0       720000         4096      36740.3          1023844
     0       800000         4096      36184.6           916599
     0       880000         4096       1282.7          1054367
     0       960000         4096       3951.3           918773
     0      1040000         4096      40646.2           996448
     0      1120000         4096      43610.1           895647
     0      1200000         4096      40333.1           921048

And a single sync pass took:

  real    0m52.407s
  user    0m0.000s
  sys     0m0.090s

After the patch, there is no impact on fsmark results, and each
individual sync(2) operation run concurrently with the same fsmark
workload takes roughly 7s:

  real    0m6.930s
  user    0m0.000s
  sys     0m0.039s

IOWs, sync is 7-8x faster on a busy filesystem and does not have an
adverse impact on ongoing async data write operations.

Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Francisco Franco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>
writeback: fix race that cause writeback hung

There is a race between mark inode dirty and writeback thread, see the
following scenario.  In this case, writeback thread will not run though
there is dirty_io.

__mark_inode_dirty()                                          bdi_writeback_workfn()
	...                                                       	...
	spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
	...
	if (bdi_cap_writeback_dirty(bdi)) {
	    <<< assume wb has dirty_io, so wakeup_bdi is false.
	    <<< the following inode_dirty also have wakeup_bdi false.
	    if (!wb_has_dirty_io(&bdi->wb))
		    wakeup_bdi = true;
	}
	spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
	                                                            <<< assume last dirty_io is removed here.
	                                                            pages_written = wb_do_writeback(wb);
	                                                            ...
	                                                            <<< work_list empty and wb has no dirty_io,
	                                                            <<< delayed_work will not be queued.
	                                                            if (!list_empty(&bdi->work_list) ||
	                                                                (wb_has_dirty_io(wb) && dirty_writeback_interval))
	                                                                queue_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &wb->dwork,
	                                                                    msecs_to_jiffies(dirty_writeback_interval * 10));
	spin_lock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
	inode->dirtied_when = jiffies;
	<<< new dirty_io is added.
	list_move(&inode->i_wb_list, &bdi->wb.b_dirty);
	spin_unlock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);

	<<< though there is dirty_io, but wakeup_bdi is false,
	<<< so writeback thread will not be waked up and
	<<< the new dirty_io will not be flushed.
	if (wakeup_bdi)
	    bdi_wakeup_thread_delayed(bdi);

Writeback will run until there is a new flush work queued.  This may cause
a lot of dirty pages stay in memory for a long time.

Signed-off-by: Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@oracle.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Francisco Franco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>
writeback: fix writeback cache thrashing

Consider Process A: huge I/O on sda
        doing heavy write operation - dirty memory becomes more
        than dirty_background_ratio
        on HDD - flusher thread flush-8:0

Consider Process B: small I/O on sdb
        doing while [1]; read 1024K + rewrite 1024K + sleep 2sec
        on Flash device - flusher thread flush-8:16

As Process A is a heavy dirtier, dirty memory becomes more
than dirty_background_thresh. Due to this, below check becomes
true(checking global_page_state in over_bground_thresh)
for all bdi devices(even for very small dirtied bdi - sdb):

In this case, even small cached data on 'sdb' is forced to flush
and writeback cache thrashing happens.

When we added debug prints inside above 'if' condition and ran
above Process A(heavy dirtier on bdi with flush-8:0) and
Process B(1024K frequent read/rewrite on bdi with flush-8:16)
we got below prints:

[Test setup: ARM dual core CPU, 512 MB RAM]

[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  56064 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  56704 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 84720 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 94720 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   384 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   960 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =    64 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 92160 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   256 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   768 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =    64 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   256 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   320 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =     0 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 92032 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 91968 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   192 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  1024 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =    64 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   192 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   576 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =     0 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 84352 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   192 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =   512 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:16 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =     0 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 92608 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE = 92544 KB

As mentioned in above log, when global dirty memory > global background_thresh
small cached data is also forced to flush by flush-8:16.
If removing global background_thresh checking code, we can reduce cache
thrashing of frequently used small data.
And It will be great if we can reserve a portion of writeback cache using
min_ratio.

After applying patch:
$ echo 5 > /sys/block/sdb/bdi/min_ratio
$ cat /sys/block/sdb/bdi/min_ratio
5
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  56064 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  56704 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  84160 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  96960 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  94080 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  93120 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  93120 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  91520 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  89600 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  93696 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  93696 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  72960 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  90624 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  90624 KB
[over_bground_thresh]: wakeup flush-8:0 : BDI_RECLAIMABLE =  90688 KB

As mentioned in the above logs, once cache is reserved for Process B,
and patch is applied there is less writeback cache thrashing on sdb
by frequent forced writeback by flush-8:16 in over_bground_thresh.

After all, small cached data will be flushed by periodic writeback
once every dirty_writeback_interval.

Suggested-by: Wanpeng Li <liwanp@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Vivek Trivedi <t.vivek@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Francisco Franco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>
CPU hotplug, writeback: Don't call writeback_set_ratelimit() too often during hotplug

The CPU hotplug callback related to writeback calls writeback_set_ratelimit()
during every state change in the hotplug sequence. This is unnecessary
since num_online_cpus() changes only once during the entire hotplug operation.

So invoke the function only once per hotplug, thereby avoiding the
unnecessary repetition of those costly calculations.

Signed-off-by: Srivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Francisco Franco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>
mm: fix calculation of dirtyable memory

The system uses global_dirtyable_memory() to calculate number of
dirtyable pages/pages that can be allocated to the page cache.  A bug
causes an underflow thus making the page count look like a big unsigned
number.  This in turn confuses the dirty writeback throttling to
aggressively write back pages as they become dirty (usually 1 page at a
time).  This generally only affects systems with highmem because the
underflowed count gets subtracted from the global count of dirtyable
memory.

The problem was introduced with v3.2-4896-gab8fabd

Fix is to ensure we don't get an underflowed total of either highmem or
global dirtyable memory.

Signed-off-by: Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@chromium.org>
Signed-off-by: Puneet Kumar <puneetster@chromium.org>
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Tested-by: Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Francisco Franco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>
mm/page-writeback.c: fix dirty_balance_reserve subtraction from dirtyable memory

Tejun reported stuttering and latency spikes on a system where random
tasks would enter direct reclaim and get stuck on dirty pages.  Around
50% of memory was occupied by tmpfs backed by an SSD, and another disk
(rotating) was reading and writing at max speed to shrink a partition.

: The problem was pretty ridiculous.  It's a 8gig machine w/ one ssd and 10k
: rpm harddrive and I could reliably reproduce constant stuttering every
: several seconds for as long as buffered IO was going on on the hard drive
: either with tmpfs occupying somewhere above 4gig or a test program which
: allocates about the same amount of anon memory.  Although swap usage was
: zero, turning off swap also made the problem go away too.
:
: The trigger conditions seem quite plausible - high anon memory usage w/
: heavy buffered IO and swap configured - and it's highly likely that this
: is happening in the wild too.  (this can happen with copying large files
: to usb sticks too, right?)

This patch (of 2):

The dirty_balance_reserve is an approximation of the fraction of free
pages that the page allocator does not make available for page cache
allocations.  As a result, it has to be taken into account when
calculating the amount of "dirtyable memory", the baseline to which
dirty_background_ratio and dirty_ratio are applied.

However, currently the reserve is subtracted from the sum of free and
reclaimable pages, which is non-sensical and leads to erroneous results
when the system is dominated by unreclaimable pages and the
dirty_balance_reserve is bigger than free+reclaimable.  In that case, at
least the already allocated cache should be considered dirtyable.

Fix the calculation by subtracting the reserve from the amount of free
pages, then adding the reclaimable pages on top.

[akpm@linux-foundation.org: fix CONFIG_HIGHMEM build]
Signed-off-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
Reported-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Tested-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Cc: Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>
Cc: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.cz>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>

Signed-off-by: franciscofranco <franciscofranco.1990@gmail.com>