[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091112230736.GD2936@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:07:36 -0500
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
To: Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
nauman@...gle.com, dpshah@...gle.com, lizf@...fujitsu.com,
ryov@...inux.co.jp, fernando@....ntt.co.jp, s-uchida@...jp.nec.com,
taka@...inux.co.jp, jmoyer@...hat.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 11, 2009 at 08:48:09AM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
> Vivek Goyal wrote:
> ...
> >
> > @@ -1245,10 +1429,10 @@ static int cfq_forced_dispatch(struct cfq_data *cfqd)
> > struct cfq_queue *cfqq;
> > int dispatched = 0;
> >
> > - while ((cfqq = cfq_rb_first(&cfqd->service_tree)) != NULL)
> > + while ((cfqq = cfq_get_next_queue(cfqd)) != NULL)
> > dispatched += __cfq_forced_dispatch_cfqq(cfqq);
> >
> > - cfq_slice_expired(cfqd, 0);
> > + cfq_slice_expired(cfqd);
> >
> > BUG_ON(cfqd->busy_queues);
> >
> > @@ -1391,7 +1575,7 @@ static int cfq_dispatch_requests(struct request_queue *q, int force)
> > cfqq->slice_dispatch >= cfq_prio_to_maxrq(cfqd, cfqq)) ||
> > cfq_class_idle(cfqq))) {
> > cfqq->slice_end = jiffies + 1;
> > - cfq_slice_expired(cfqd, 0);
> > + cfq_slice_expired(cfqd);
>
> Hi Vivek,
>
> I think here you should make sure that when updating cfqq->slice_end, cfqq->slice_end doesn't
> equal to 0. Because if cfqq->slice_end == 0, cfq_slice_expired() just charge for 1 jiffy, but
> if cfqq->slice_end is updated when it equals to 0(first request still in the air), at that time
> cfqq->slice_start == 0, and slice_used is charged as "jiffies - cfqq->slice_start". Following
> patch fixes this bug.
>
Hi Gui,
This can happen only once during a one wrap around cycle of jiffies. That
too depends in case we are hitting jiffies+1 as 0 or not.
So I would not worry much about it right now.
In fact, not updating slice_end, will make idle or async queue slice last
much longer than it should have.
Thanks
Vivek
> Signed-off-by: Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
> ---
> block/cfq-iosched.c | 3 ++-
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/cfq-iosched.c b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> index f23d713..12afc14 100644
> --- a/block/cfq-iosched.c
> +++ b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> @@ -1999,7 +1999,8 @@ static int cfq_dispatch_requests(struct request_queue *q, int force)
> if (cfqd->busy_queues > 1 && ((!cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq) &&
> cfqq->slice_dispatch >= cfq_prio_to_maxrq(cfqd, cfqq)) ||
> cfq_class_idle(cfqq))) {
> - cfqq->slice_end = jiffies + 1;
> + if (cfqq->slice_end)
> + cfqq->slice_end = jiffies + 1;
> cfq_slice_expired(cfqd);
> }
>
> --
> 1.5.4.rc3
--
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