linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] cfq: Make use of service count to estimate the rb

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 27 Nov 2009 09:42:39 +0800
From:	Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
To:	Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@...il.com>
CC:	Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>,
	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] cfq: Make use of service count to estimate the rb_key
 	offset

Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
> Hi Gui, Jens
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Gui Jianfeng
> <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> Hi Jens, Czoccolo
>>
>> For the moment, different workload cfq queues are put into different
>> service trees. But CFQ still uses "busy_queues" to estimate rb_key
>> offset when inserting a cfq queue into a service tree. I think this
>> isn't appropriate, and it should make use of service tree count to do
>> this estimation. This patch is for for-2.6.33 branch.
> 
> In cfq_choose_wl, we rely on consistency of rb_keys across service
> trees to compute the next workload to be serviced.
>         for (i = 0; i < 3; ++i) {
>                 /* otherwise, select the one with lowest rb_key */
>                 queue = cfq_rb_first(service_tree_for(prio, i, cfqd));
>                 if (queue &&
>                     (!key_valid || time_before(queue->rb_key, lowest_key))) {
>                         lowest_key = queue->rb_key;
> 			cur_best = i;
> 			key_valid = true;
> 		}
>         }
> 
> If you change how the rb_key is computed (so it is no longer
> consistent across service trees) without changing how it is used can
> introduce problems.

  Ok, I think I was missing this part. This part still behaves like old CFQ regardless
  of workload type. I'm wondering why you prefer starting from sync no-idle only when 
  priorities switched, after that, you do it like old CFQ behavior? In order to improve
  latency for sync no-idle workload, is it possible to take workload type into account,
  not only rely on rb_keys across service trees?

  Thanks,
  Gui
> 
> Thanks,
> Corrado
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>>  block/cfq-iosched.c |    8 ++++++--
>>  1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/cfq-iosched.c b/block/cfq-iosched.c
>> index 1bcbd8c..467981e 100644
>> --- a/block/cfq-iosched.c
>> +++ b/block/cfq-iosched.c
>> @@ -600,11 +600,15 @@ cfq_find_next_rq(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *cfqq,
>>  static unsigned long cfq_slice_offset(struct cfq_data *cfqd,
>>                                      struct cfq_queue *cfqq)
>>  {
>> +       struct cfq_rb_root *service_tree;
>> +
>> +       service_tree = service_tree_for(cfqq_prio(cfqq), cfqq_type(cfqq), cfqd);
>> +
>>        /*
>>         * just an approximation, should be ok.
>>         */
>> -       return (cfqd->busy_queues - 1) * (cfq_prio_slice(cfqd, 1, 0) -
>> -                      cfq_prio_slice(cfqd, cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq), cfqq->ioprio));
>> +       return  service_tree->count * (cfq_prio_slice(cfqd, 1, 0) -
>> +                  cfq_prio_slice(cfqd, cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq), cfqq->ioprio));
>>  }
>>
>>  /*
>> --
>> 1.5.4.rc3
>>
>> --
>> Regards
>> Gui Jianfeng
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 



--
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/