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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 30 May 2022 16:34:58 +0800 From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com> To: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org> CC: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, linux-block <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <yi.zhang@...wei.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v7 2/3] block, bfq: refactor the counting of 'num_groups_with_pending_reqs' 在 2022/05/30 16:10, Paolo Valente 写道: > > >> Il giorno 28 mag 2022, alle ore 11:50, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com> ha scritto: >> >> Currently, bfq can't handle sync io concurrently as long as they >> are not issued from root group. This is because >> 'bfqd->num_groups_with_pending_reqs > 0' is always true in >> bfq_asymmetric_scenario(). >> >> The way that bfqg is counted into 'num_groups_with_pending_reqs': >> >> Before this patch: >> 1) root group will never be counted. >> 2) Count if bfqg or it's child bfqgs have pending requests. >> 3) Don't count if bfqg and it's child bfqgs complete all the requests. >> >> After this patch: >> 1) root group is counted. >> 2) Count if bfqg have at least one bfqq that is marked busy. >> 3) Don't count if bfqg doesn't have any busy bfqqs. > > Unfortunately, I see a last problem here. I see a double change: > (1) a bfqg is now counted only as a function of the state of its child > queues, and not of also its child bfqgs > (2) the state considered for counting a bfqg moves from having pending > requests to having busy queues > > I'm ok with with (1), which is a good catch (you are lady explained > the idea to me some time ago IIRC). > > Yet I fear that (2) is not ok. A bfqq can become non busy even if it > still has in-flight I/O, i.e. I/O being served in the drive. The > weight of such a bfqq must still be considered in the weights_tree, > and the group containing such a queue must still be counted when > checking whether the scenario is asymmetric. Otherwise service > guarantees are broken. The reason is that, if a scenario is deemed as > symmetric because in-flight I/O is not taken into account, then idling > will not be performed to protect some bfqq, and in-flight I/O may > steal bandwidth to that bfqq in an uncontrolled way. Hi, Paolo Thanks for your explanation. My orginal thoughts was using weights_tree insertion/removal, however, Jan convinced me that using bfq_add/del_bfqq_busy() is ok. From what I see, when bfqq dispatch the last request, bfq_del_bfqq_busy() will not be called from __bfq_bfqq_expire() if idling is needed, and it will delayed to when such bfqq get scheduled as in-service queue again. Which means the weight of such bfqq should still be considered in the weights_tree. I also run some tests on null_blk with "irqmode=2 completion_nsec=100000000(100ms) hw_queue_depth=1", and tests show that service guarantees are still preserved on slow device. Do you this is strong enough to cover your concern? Thanks, Kuai > > I verified this also experimentally a few years ago, when I added this > weights_tree stuff. That's the rationale behind the part of > bfq_weights_tree_remove that this patch eliminates. IOW, > for a bfqq and its parent bfqg to be out of the count for symmetry, > all bfqq's requests must also be completed. > > Thanks, > Paolo > >> >> The main reason to use busy state of bfqq instead of 'pending requests' >> is that bfqq can stay busy after dispatching the last request if idling >> is needed for service guarantees. >> >> With this change, the occasion that only one group is activated can be >> detected, and next patch will support concurrent sync io in the >> occasion. >> >> This patch also rename 'num_groups_with_pending_reqs' to >> 'num_groups_with_busy_queues'. >> >> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com> >> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> >> --- >> block/bfq-iosched.c | 46 ++----------------------------------- >> block/bfq-iosched.h | 55 ++++++--------------------------------------- >> block/bfq-wf2q.c | 19 ++++------------ >> 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 107 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c >> index 0d46cb728bbf..eb1da1bd5eb4 100644 >> --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c >> +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c >> @@ -852,7 +852,7 @@ static bool bfq_asymmetric_scenario(struct bfq_data *bfqd, >> >> return varied_queue_weights || multiple_classes_busy >> #ifdef CONFIG_BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED >> - || bfqd->num_groups_with_pending_reqs > 0 >> + || bfqd->num_groups_with_busy_queues > 0 >> #endif >> ; >> } >> @@ -970,48 +970,6 @@ void __bfq_weights_tree_remove(struct bfq_data *bfqd, >> void bfq_weights_tree_remove(struct bfq_data *bfqd, >> struct bfq_queue *bfqq) >> { >> - struct bfq_entity *entity = bfqq->entity.parent; >> - >> - for_each_entity(entity) { >> - struct bfq_sched_data *sd = entity->my_sched_data; >> - >> - if (sd->next_in_service || sd->in_service_entity) { >> - /* >> - * entity is still active, because either >> - * next_in_service or in_service_entity is not >> - * NULL (see the comments on the definition of >> - * next_in_service for details on why >> - * in_service_entity must be checked too). >> - * >> - * As a consequence, its parent entities are >> - * active as well, and thus this loop must >> - * stop here. >> - */ >> - break; >> - } >> - >> - /* >> - * The decrement of num_groups_with_pending_reqs is >> - * not performed immediately upon the deactivation of >> - * entity, but it is delayed to when it also happens >> - * that the first leaf descendant bfqq of entity gets >> - * all its pending requests completed. The following >> - * instructions perform this delayed decrement, if >> - * needed. See the comments on >> - * num_groups_with_pending_reqs for details. >> - */ >> - if (entity->in_groups_with_pending_reqs) { >> - entity->in_groups_with_pending_reqs = false; >> - bfqd->num_groups_with_pending_reqs--; >> - } >> - } >> - >> - /* >> - * Next function is invoked last, because it causes bfqq to be >> - * freed if the following holds: bfqq is not in service and >> - * has no dispatched request. DO NOT use bfqq after the next >> - * function invocation. >> - */ >> __bfq_weights_tree_remove(bfqd, bfqq, >> &bfqd->queue_weights_tree); >> } >> @@ -7118,7 +7076,7 @@ static int bfq_init_queue(struct request_queue *q, struct elevator_type *e) >> bfqd->idle_slice_timer.function = bfq_idle_slice_timer; >> >> bfqd->queue_weights_tree = RB_ROOT_CACHED; >> - bfqd->num_groups_with_pending_reqs = 0; >> + bfqd->num_groups_with_busy_queues = 0; >> >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bfqd->active_list); >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&bfqd->idle_list); >> diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.h b/block/bfq-iosched.h >> index d92adbdd70ee..6c6cd984d769 100644 >> --- a/block/bfq-iosched.h >> +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.h >> @@ -197,9 +197,6 @@ struct bfq_entity { >> /* flag, set to request a weight, ioprio or ioprio_class change */ >> int prio_changed; >> >> - /* flag, set if the entity is counted in groups_with_pending_reqs */ >> - bool in_groups_with_pending_reqs; >> - >> /* last child queue of entity created (for non-leaf entities) */ >> struct bfq_queue *last_bfqq_created; >> }; >> @@ -496,52 +493,14 @@ struct bfq_data { >> struct rb_root_cached queue_weights_tree; >> >> /* >> - * Number of groups with at least one descendant process that >> - * has at least one request waiting for completion. Note that >> - * this accounts for also requests already dispatched, but not >> - * yet completed. Therefore this number of groups may differ >> - * (be larger) than the number of active groups, as a group is >> - * considered active only if its corresponding entity has >> - * descendant queues with at least one request queued. This >> - * number is used to decide whether a scenario is symmetric. >> - * For a detailed explanation see comments on the computation >> - * of the variable asymmetric_scenario in the function >> - * bfq_better_to_idle(). >> - * >> - * However, it is hard to compute this number exactly, for >> - * groups with multiple descendant processes. Consider a group >> - * that is inactive, i.e., that has no descendant process with >> - * pending I/O inside BFQ queues. Then suppose that >> - * num_groups_with_pending_reqs is still accounting for this >> - * group, because the group has descendant processes with some >> - * I/O request still in flight. num_groups_with_pending_reqs >> - * should be decremented when the in-flight request of the >> - * last descendant process is finally completed (assuming that >> - * nothing else has changed for the group in the meantime, in >> - * terms of composition of the group and active/inactive state of child >> - * groups and processes). To accomplish this, an additional >> - * pending-request counter must be added to entities, and must >> - * be updated correctly. To avoid this additional field and operations, >> - * we resort to the following tradeoff between simplicity and >> - * accuracy: for an inactive group that is still counted in >> - * num_groups_with_pending_reqs, we decrement >> - * num_groups_with_pending_reqs when the first descendant >> - * process of the group remains with no request waiting for >> - * completion. >> - * >> - * Even this simpler decrement strategy requires a little >> - * carefulness: to avoid multiple decrements, we flag a group, >> - * more precisely an entity representing a group, as still >> - * counted in num_groups_with_pending_reqs when it becomes >> - * inactive. Then, when the first descendant queue of the >> - * entity remains with no request waiting for completion, >> - * num_groups_with_pending_reqs is decremented, and this flag >> - * is reset. After this flag is reset for the entity, >> - * num_groups_with_pending_reqs won't be decremented any >> - * longer in case a new descendant queue of the entity remains >> - * with no request waiting for completion. >> + * Number of groups with at least one bfqq that is marked busy, >> + * and this number is used to decide whether a scenario is symmetric. >> + * Note that bfqq is busy doesn't mean that the bfqq contains requests. >> + * If idling is needed for service guarantees, bfqq will stay busy >> + * after dispatching the last request, see details in >> + * __bfq_bfqq_expire(). >> */ >> - unsigned int num_groups_with_pending_reqs; >> + unsigned int num_groups_with_busy_queues; >> >> /* >> * Per-class (RT, BE, IDLE) number of bfq_queues containing >> diff --git a/block/bfq-wf2q.c b/block/bfq-wf2q.c >> index b97e33688335..48ca7922035c 100644 >> --- a/block/bfq-wf2q.c >> +++ b/block/bfq-wf2q.c >> @@ -221,13 +221,15 @@ static bool bfq_no_longer_next_in_service(struct bfq_entity *entity) >> static void bfq_inc_busy_queues(struct bfq_queue *bfqq) >> { >> bfqq->bfqd->busy_queues[bfqq->ioprio_class - 1]++; >> - bfqq_group(bfqq)->busy_queues++; >> + if (!(bfqq_group(bfqq)->busy_queues++)) >> + bfqq->bfqd->num_groups_with_busy_queues++; >> } >> >> static void bfq_dec_busy_queues(struct bfq_queue *bfqq) >> { >> bfqq->bfqd->busy_queues[bfqq->ioprio_class - 1]--; >> - bfqq_group(bfqq)->busy_queues--; >> + if (!(--bfqq_group(bfqq)->busy_queues)) >> + bfqq->bfqd->num_groups_with_busy_queues--; >> } >> >> #else /* CONFIG_BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED */ >> @@ -1006,19 +1008,6 @@ static void __bfq_activate_entity(struct bfq_entity *entity, >> entity->on_st_or_in_serv = true; >> } >> >> -#ifdef CONFIG_BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED >> - if (!bfq_entity_to_bfqq(entity)) { /* bfq_group */ >> - struct bfq_group *bfqg = >> - container_of(entity, struct bfq_group, entity); >> - struct bfq_data *bfqd = bfqg->bfqd; >> - >> - if (!entity->in_groups_with_pending_reqs) { >> - entity->in_groups_with_pending_reqs = true; >> - bfqd->num_groups_with_pending_reqs++; >> - } >> - } >> -#endif >> - >> bfq_update_fin_time_enqueue(entity, st, backshifted); >> } >> >> -- >> 2.31.1 >> > > . >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists