| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20090817203739.GD3539@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:37:39 -0400
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, dm-devel@...hat.com,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, ryov@...inux.co.jp,
balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, righi.andrea@...il.com,
nauman@...gle.com, dpshah@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
mikew@...gle.com, fchecconi@...il.com, paolo.valente@...more.it,
fernando@....ntt.co.jp, s-uchida@...jp.nec.com, taka@...inux.co.jp,
jmoyer@...hat.com, dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com, agk@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
peterz@...radead.org, jmarchan@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/24] io-controller: Core of the elevator fair queuing
On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 01:29:48PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> ...
> > +static void place_entity(struct io_service_tree *st, struct io_entity *entity,
> > + int add_front)
> > +{
> > + u64 vdisktime = st->min_vdisktime;
> > + struct rb_node *parent;
> > + struct io_entity *entry;
> > + int nr_active = st->nr_active - 1;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Currently put entity at the end of last entity. This probably will
> > + * require adjustments as we move along
> > + */
> > + if (io_entity_class_idle(entity)) {
> > + vdisktime = elv_delta_fair(ELV_IDLE_DELAY, entity);
> > + parent = rb_last(&st->active);
> > + if (parent) {
> > + entry = rb_entry(parent, struct io_entity, rb_node);
> > + vdisktime += entry->vdisktime;
> > + }
> > + } else if (!add_front && nr_active) {
> > + parent = rb_last(&st->active);
> > + if (parent) {
> > + entry = rb_entry(parent, struct io_entity, rb_node);
> > + vdisktime = entry->vdisktime;
> > + }
> > + } else
> > + vdisktime = st->min_vdisktime;
>
> Hi Vivek,
>
> Should we set vdisktime a little small than st->min_vdisktime to ensure putting
> this entity at the left-most position when add_front is set?
>
Hi Gui,
Good point. Actually instead of giving a little smaller time, I have
modified __enqueue_io_entity() to take additional argument to put the
entity at the front of the rb-tree. Please find attached the patch.
Thanks
Vivek
o There can be multiple entities with same vdisktime that is equal to
min_vdisktime. If one queue decids to preempt the current queue and even
if we assign the min_vdisktime to preempting queue, it will not be dispatched
first as there are other entities with same vdisktime. This patch adds
an option to __enqueue_entity() telling it that new entity being queued
is to be added at front hence in case of equal queues, instead of going
right of the tree, it goes to the left of the tree.
o Also update the min_vdisktime() after selecting a new queue. Currently
min_vdisktime() is updated only upon queue expiry. But it might hapeen
that after queue expiry (put_prev_entity()), queue got deleted because
it did not have any request. In that case min_vdisktime and vdisktime
of leftmost entity might differ. Hence make sure to update min_vdisktime
when an entity is selected for dispatch.
Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
---
block/elevator-fq.c | 15 +++++++++------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
Index: linux13/block/elevator-fq.c
===================================================================
--- linux13.orig/block/elevator-fq.c 2009-08-16 14:43:26.000000000 -0400
+++ linux13/block/elevator-fq.c 2009-08-17 16:16:06.000000000 -0400
@@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ static inline u64 min_vdisktime(u64 min_
static void update_min_vdisktime(struct io_service_tree *st)
{
- u64 vdisktime;
+ u64 vdisktime = st->min_vdisktime;
if (st->active_entity)
vdisktime = st->active_entity->vdisktime;
@@ -486,7 +486,8 @@ static void dequeue_io_entity(struct io_
}
static void
-__enqueue_io_entity(struct io_service_tree *st, struct io_entity *entity)
+__enqueue_io_entity(struct io_service_tree *st, struct io_entity *entity,
+ int add_front)
{
struct rb_node **node = &st->active.rb_node;
struct rb_node *parent = NULL;
@@ -498,7 +499,8 @@ __enqueue_io_entity(struct io_service_tr
parent = *node;
entry = rb_entry(parent, struct io_entity, rb_node);
- if (key < entity_key(st, entry)) {
+ if (key < entity_key(st, entry) ||
+ (add_front && (key == entity_key(st, entry)))) {
node = &parent->rb_left;
} else {
node = &parent->rb_right;
@@ -528,7 +530,7 @@ static void enqueue_io_entity(struct io_
sd->nr_active++;
entity->on_st = 1;
place_entity(st, entity, 0);
- __enqueue_io_entity(st, entity);
+ __enqueue_io_entity(st, entity, 0);
debug_update_stats_enqueue(entity);
}
@@ -559,6 +561,7 @@ static struct io_entity *lookup_next_io_
__dequeue_io_entity(st, entity);
st->active_entity = entity;
sd->active_entity = entity;
+ update_min_vdisktime(entity->st);
break;
}
}
@@ -587,7 +590,7 @@ static void requeue_io_entity(struct io_
if (next_entity && next_entity != entity) {
__dequeue_io_entity(st, entity);
place_entity(st, entity, 1);
- __enqueue_io_entity(st, entity);
+ __enqueue_io_entity(st, entity, 1);
}
}
@@ -610,7 +613,7 @@ static void put_prev_io_entity(struct io
io_entity_update_prio(entity);
enqueue_io_entity(entity);
} else
- __enqueue_io_entity(st, entity);
+ __enqueue_io_entity(st, entity, 0);
}
/* Put curr ioq back into rb tree. */
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists