Re: [PATCH v2 2/6] writeback: collect stats of all wb of bdi in bdi_debug_stats_show

[Brian Foster]

On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 11:57:47PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> /sys/kernel/debug/bdi/xxx/stats is supposed to show writeback information
> of whole bdi, but only writeback information of bdi in root cgroup is
> collected. So writeback information in non-root cgroup are missing now.
> To be more specific, considering following case:
> 
> /* create writeback cgroup */
> cd /sys/fs/cgroup
> echo "+memory +io" > cgroup.subtree_control
> mkdir group1
> cd group1
> echo $$ > cgroup.procs
> /* do writeback in cgroup */
> fio -name test -filename=/dev/vdb ...
> /* get writeback info of bdi */
> cat /sys/kernel/debug/bdi/xxx/stats
> The cat result unexpectedly implies that there is no writeback on target
> bdi.
> 
> Fix this by collecting stats of all wb in bdi instead of only wb in
> root cgroup.
> 
> Following domain hierarchy is tested:
>                 global domain (320G)
>                 /                 \
>         cgroup domain1(10G)     cgroup domain2(10G)
>                 |                 |
> bdi            wb1               wb2
> 
> /* all writeback info of bdi is successfully collected */
> cat stats
> BdiWriteback:             2912 kB
> BdiReclaimable:        1598464 kB
> BdiDirtyThresh:      167479028 kB
> DirtyThresh:         195038532 kB
> BackgroundThresh:     32466728 kB
> BdiDirtied:           19141696 kB
> BdiWritten:           17543456 kB
> BdiWriteBandwidth:     1136172 kBps
> b_dirty:                     2
> b_io:                        0
> b_more_io:                   1
> b_dirty_time:                0
> bdi_list:                    1
> state:                       1
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  mm/backing-dev.c | 100 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 71 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c
> index 70f02959f3bd..8daf950e6855 100644
> --- a/mm/backing-dev.c
> +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
..
> @@ -65,16 +78,54 @@ static struct backing_dev_info *lookup_bdi(struct seq_file *m)
>  	return NULL;
>  }
>  
> +static void collect_wb_stats(struct wb_stats *stats,
> +			     struct bdi_writeback *wb)
> +{
> +	struct inode *inode;
> +
> +	spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
> +	list_for_each_entry(inode, &wb->b_dirty, i_io_list)
> +		stats->nr_dirty++;
> +	list_for_each_entry(inode, &wb->b_io, i_io_list)
> +		stats->nr_io++;
> +	list_for_each_entry(inode, &wb->b_more_io, i_io_list)
> +		stats->nr_more_io++;
> +	list_for_each_entry(inode, &wb->b_dirty_time, i_io_list)
> +		if (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_TIME)
> +			stats->nr_dirty_time++;
> +	spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
> +
> +	stats->nr_writeback += wb_stat(wb, WB_WRITEBACK);
> +	stats->nr_reclaimable += wb_stat(wb, WB_RECLAIMABLE);
> +	stats->nr_dirtied += wb_stat(wb, WB_DIRTIED);
> +	stats->nr_written += wb_stat(wb, WB_WRITTEN);
> +	stats->wb_thresh += wb_calc_thresh(wb, stats->dirty_thresh);

Kinda nitty question, but is this a sum of per-wb writeback thresholds?
If so, do you consider that useful information vs. the per-wb threshold
data presumably exposed in the next patch?

I'm not really that worried about what debug data we expose, it just
seems a little odd. How would you document this value in a sentence or
two, for example?

> +}
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK
> +static void bdi_collect_stats(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
> +			      struct wb_stats *stats)
> +{
> +	struct bdi_writeback *wb;
> +
> +	list_for_each_entry_rcu(wb, &bdi->wb_list, bdi_node)
> +		collect_wb_stats(stats, wb);

Depending on discussion on the previous patch and whether the higher
level rcu protection in bdi_debug_stats_show() is really necessary, it
might make more sense to move it here.

I'm also wondering if you'd want to check the state of the individual wb
(i.e. WB_registered?) before reading it..?

> +}
> +#else
> +static void bdi_collect_stats(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
> +			      struct wb_stats *stats)
> +{
> +	collect_wb_stats(stats, &bdi->wb);
> +}
> +#endif
..
> @@ -115,18 +157,18 @@ static int bdi_debug_stats_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
>  		   "b_dirty_time:       %10lu\n"
>  		   "bdi_list:           %10u\n"
>  		   "state:              %10lx\n",
> -		   (unsigned long) K(wb_stat(wb, WB_WRITEBACK)),
> -		   (unsigned long) K(wb_stat(wb, WB_RECLAIMABLE)),
> -		   K(wb_thresh),
> +		   K(stats.nr_writeback),
> +		   K(stats.nr_reclaimable),
> +		   K(stats.wb_thresh),
>  		   K(dirty_thresh),
>  		   K(background_thresh),
> -		   (unsigned long) K(wb_stat(wb, WB_DIRTIED)),
> -		   (unsigned long) K(wb_stat(wb, WB_WRITTEN)),
> -		   (unsigned long) K(wb->write_bandwidth),
> -		   nr_dirty,
> -		   nr_io,
> -		   nr_more_io,
> -		   nr_dirty_time,
> +		   K(stats.nr_dirtied),
> +		   K(stats.nr_written),
> +		   K(tot_bw),
> +		   stats.nr_dirty,
> +		   stats.nr_io,
> +		   stats.nr_more_io,
> +		   stats.nr_dirty_time,
>  		   !list_empty(&bdi->bdi_list), bdi->wb.state);

Is it worth showing a list count here rather than list_empty() state?

Brian

>  
>  	rcu_read_unlock();
> -- 
> 2.30.0
>