[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211221115247.GE24748@quack2.suse.cz>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 12:52:47 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, tj@...nel.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
paolo.valente@...aro.org, fchecconi@...il.com,
avanzini.arianna@...il.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yi.zhang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] block, bfq: avoid moving bfqq to it's parent bfqg
On Tue 21-12-21 19:08:44, yukuai (C) wrote:
> 在 2021/12/21 18:16, Jan Kara 写道:
> > On Tue 21-12-21 11:21:33, Yu Kuai wrote:
> > > Moving bfqq to it's parent bfqg is pointless.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
> >
> > Did you notice that this is happening often enough that the check is worth
> > it? Where do we do this?
> >
>
> I noticed that this will happend when root group is offlined:
>
> bfq_pd_offline
> bfq_put_async_queues
> __bfq_put_async_bfqq
> bfq_bfqq_move
>
> I'm not sure if there are other situations. I think bfq_bfqq_move()
> is not happening often itself, thus the checking won't affect
> performance.
Yeah, OK, I was just wondering. I guess there's no harm in doing this
check. Maybe add a comment that this can sometimes happen when dealing with
the root cgroup. And then feel free to add:
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists