Message-ID: <77b4c06c-f813-bcac-ea26-107e52f46d0a@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 16:27:46 +0800
From:   "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC:     <paolo.valente@...aro.org>, <axboe@...nel.dk>, <tj@...nel.org>,
        <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2 2/5] block, bfq: add fake weight_counter for
 weight-raised queue

在 2022/04/26 15:40, Jan Kara 写道:
> On Tue 26-04-22 09:49:04, yukuai (C) wrote:
>> 在 2022/04/26 0:16, Jan Kara 写道:
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> On Mon 25-04-22 21:34:16, yukuai (C) wrote:
>>>> 在 2022/04/25 17:48, Jan Kara 写道:
>>>>> On Sat 16-04-22 17:37:50, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>>>>> Weight-raised queue is not inserted to weights_tree, which makes it
>>>>>> impossible to track how many queues have pending requests through
>>>>>> weights_tree insertion and removel. This patch add fake weight_counter
>>>>>> for weight-raised queue to do that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is a bit hacky. I was looking into a better place where to hook to
>>>>> count entities in a bfq_group with requests and I think bfq_add_bfqq_busy()
>>>>> and bfq_del_bfqq_busy() are ideal for this. It also makes better sense
>>>>> conceptually than hooking into weights tree handling.
>>>>
>>>> bfq_del_bfqq_busy() will be called when all the reqs in the bfqq are
>>>> dispatched, however there might still some reqs are't completed yet.
>>>>
>>>> Here what we want to track is how many bfqqs have pending reqs,
>>>> specifically if the bfqq have reqs are't complted.
>>>>
>>>> Thus I think bfq_del_bfqq_busy() is not the right place to do that.
>>>
>>> Yes, I'm aware there will be a difference. But note that bfqq can stay busy
>>> with only dispatched requests because the logic in __bfq_bfqq_expire() will
>>> not call bfq_del_bfqq_busy() if idling is needed for service guarantees. So
>>> I think using bfq_add/del_bfqq_busy() would work OK.
>> Hi,
>>
>> I didn't think of that before. If bfqq stay busy after dispathing all
>> the requests, there are two other places that bfqq can clear busy:
>>
>> 1) bfq_remove_request(), bfqq has to insert a new req while it's not in
>> service.
> 
> Yes and the request then would have to be dispatched or merged. Which
> generally means another bfqq from the same bfqg is currently active and
> thus this should have no impact on service guarantees we are interested in.
> 
>> 2) bfq_release_process_ref(), user thread is gone / moved, or old bfqq
>> is gone due to merge / ioprio change.
> 
> Yes, here there's no new IO for the bfqq so no point in maintaining any
> service guarantees to it.
> 
>> I wonder, will bfq_del_bfqq_busy() be called immediately when requests
>> are completed? (It seems not to me...). For example, a user thread
>> issue a sync io just once, and it keep running without issuing new io,
>> then when does the bfqq clears the busy state?
> 
> No, when bfqq is kept busy, it will get scheduled as in-service queue in
> the future. Then what happens depends on whether it will get more requests
> or not. But generally its busy state will get cleared once it is expired
> for other reason than preemption.

Thanks for your explanation.

I think in normal case using bfq_add/del_bfqq_busy() if fine.

There is one last situation that I'm worried: If some disk are very
slow that the dispatched reqs are not completed when the bfqq is
rescheduled as in-service queue, and thus busy state can be cleared
while reqs are not completed.

Using bfq_del_bfqq_busy() will change behaviour in this specail case,
do you think service guarantees will be broken?

Thanks,
Kuai

Powered by blists - more mailing lists