| 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: <af41c7c40911041844v2905a9c6vb9d0649faf060726@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 18:44:28 -0800
From: Divyesh Shah <dpshah@...gle.com>
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
jens.axboe@...cle.com, nauman@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
ryov@...inux.co.jp, fernando@....ntt.co.jp, s-uchida@...jp.nec.com,
taka@...inux.co.jp, guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com,
balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, righi.andrea@...il.com,
m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, riel@...hat.com,
kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/20] blkio: Change CFQ to use CFS like queue time stamps
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 8:37 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 09:30:34AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> writes:
>>
>
> Thanks for the review Jeff.
>
>> > o Currently CFQ provides priority scaled time slices to processes. If a process
>> > does not use the time slice, either because process did not have sufficient
>> > IO to do or because think time of process is large and CFQ decided to disable
>> > idling, then processes looses it time slice share.
>> ^^^^^^
>> loses
>>
>
> Will fix it.
>
>> > o One possible way to handle this is implement CFS like time stamping of the
>> > cfq queues and keep track of vtime. Next queue for execution will be selected
>> > based on the one who got lowest vtime. This patch implemented time stamping
>> > mechanism of cfq queues based on disk time used.
>> >
>> > o min_vdisktime represents the minimum vdisktime of the queue, either being
>> ^^^^^
>> > serviced or leftmost element on the serviec tree.
>>
>> queue or service tree? The latter seems to make more sense to me.
>
> Yes, it should be service tree. Will fix it.
>
>>
>> > +static inline u64
>> > +cfq_delta_fair(unsigned long delta, struct cfq_queue *cfqq)
>> > +{
>> > + const int base_slice = cfqq->cfqd->cfq_slice[cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq)];
>> > +
>> > + return delta + (base_slice/CFQ_SLICE_SCALE * (cfqq->ioprio - 4));
>> > +}
>>
>> cfq_scale_delta might be a better name.
>>
>
> cfq_scale_delta sounds good. Will use it in next version.
>
>>
>> > +static inline u64 max_vdisktime(u64 min_vdisktime, u64 vdisktime)
>> > +{
>> > + s64 delta = (s64)(vdisktime - min_vdisktime);
>> > + if (delta > 0)
>> > + min_vdisktime = vdisktime;
>> > +
>> > + return min_vdisktime;
>> > +}
>> > +
>> > +static inline u64 min_vdisktime(u64 min_vdisktime, u64 vdisktime)
>> > +{
>> > + s64 delta = (s64)(vdisktime - min_vdisktime);
>> > + if (delta < 0)
>> > + min_vdisktime = vdisktime;
>> > +
>> > + return min_vdisktime;
>> > +}
>>
>> Is there a reason you've reimplemented min and max?
>
> I think you are referring to min_t and max_t. Will these macros take care
> of wrapping too?
>
> For example, if I used min_t(u64, A, B), then unsigned comparision will
> not work right wrapping has just taken place for any of the A or B. So if
> A=-1 and B=2, then min_t() would return B as minimum. This is not right
> in our case.
>
> If we do signed comparison (min_t(s64, A, B)), that also seems to be
> broken in another case where a value of variable moves from 63bits to 64bits,
> (A=0x7fffffffffffffff, B=0x8000000000000000). Above will return B as minimum but
> in our scanario, vdisktime will progress from 0x7fffffffffffffff to
> 0x8000000000000000 and A should be returned as minimum (unsigned
> comparison).
Can you define and use u64 versions of time_before() and time_after()
(from include/linux/jiffies.h) for your comparisons? These take care
of wrapping as well. Maybe call them timestamp_before()/after().
>
> Hence I took these difnitions from CFS.
Also if these are exactly the same and you decide to continue using
these, can we move them to a common header file (time.h or maybe add a
vtime.h) and reuse?
>
>>
>> > + /*
>> > + * Maintain a cache of leftmost tree entries (it is frequently
>> > + * used)
>> > + */
>>
>> You make it sound like there is a cache of more than one entry. Please
>> fix the comment.
>
> Will fix it.
>
>>
>> > +static void cfqq_served(struct cfq_queue *cfqq, unsigned long served)
>> > +{
>> > + /*
>> > + * We don't want to charge more than allocated slice otherwise this
>> > + * queue can miss one dispatch round doubling max latencies. On the
>> > + * other hand we don't want to charge less than allocated slice as
>> > + * we stick to CFQ theme of queue loosing its share if it does not
>> ^^^^^^^
>> losing
>>
>
> Will fix it.
>
>>
>> > +/*
>> > + * Handles three operations.
>> > + * Addition of a new queue to service tree, when a new request comes in.
>> > + * Resorting of an expiring queue (used after slice expired)
>> > + * Requeuing a queue at the front (used during preemption).
>> > + */
>> > +static void cfq_service_tree_add(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *cfqq,
>> > + bool add_front, unsigned long service)
>>
>> service? Can we come up with a better name that actually hints at what
>> this is? service_time, maybe?
>
> Ok, service_time sounds good. Will change it.
>
>>
>>
>> Mostly this looks pretty good and is fairly easy to read.
>
> Thanks
> Vivek
>
--
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