[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yo+8K9MrFMl59BGj@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2022 07:43:07 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@...edance.com>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-iocost: fix false positive lagging
Hello,
On Thu, May 26, 2022 at 09:35:54PM +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote:
> I found many false positive lagging during iocost test.
>
> Since iocg->vtime will be advanced to (vnow - margins.target)
> in hweight_after_donation(), which called throw away excess,
> the iocg->done_vtime will also be advanced that much.
>
> period_at_vtime <--period_vtime--> vnow
> | |
> --------------------------------------------------->
> |<--->|
> margins.target
> |->
> vtime, done_vtime
All it does is shifting the vtime (and done_vtime) within the current window
so that we don't build up budget too lage a budget possibly spanning
multiple periods. The lagging detection is supposed to detect IOs which are
issued two+ periods ago which didn't finish in the last period. So, I don't
think the above sliding up the window affects that detection given that the
lagging detection is done before the window sliding. All it's checking is
whether there still are in-flight IOs which were issued two+ windows ago, so
how the last window has been fast forwarded shouldn't affect the detection,
no?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists