[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <da0e53b4-e947-9c91-832e-36da67037f0f@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 21:31:26 +0800
From: "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
To: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
CC: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] block, bfq: do not idle if only one cgroup is
activated
On 2021/08/27 1:00, Paolo Valente wrote:
>
> Why do you make these extensive changes, while you can leave all the
> function unchanged and just modify the above condition to something
> like
>
> || bfqd->num_groups_with_pending_reqs > 1
> || (bfqd->num_groups_with_pending_reqs && bfqd->num_queues_with_pending_reqs_in_root)
Hi, Paolo
I was thinking that if CONFIG_BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED is enabled, there is no
need to caculate smallest_weight, varied_queue_weights, and
multiple_classes_busy:
If we count root group into num_groups_with_pending_reqs
- If num_groups_with_pending_reqs <= 1, idle is not needed
- If num_groups_with_pending_reqs > 1, idle is needed
Thus such changes can save some additional overhead.
Thanks
Yu Kuai
>
> In addition, I still wonder whether you can simply add also the root
> group to bfqd->num_groups_with_pending_reqs (when the root group is
> active). This would make the design much cleaner.
>
> Thanks,
> Paolo
>
>> -#endif
>> - ;
>> + return varied_queue_weights || multiple_classes_busy;
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> --
>> 2.31.1
>>
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists