[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7e14a11b-225e-13c4-35ff-762eafd20b70@kernel.dk>
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2022 10:41:23 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>,
Michal Koutný <mkoutny@...e.com>, tj@...nel.org
Cc: ming.lei@...hat.com, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
yi.zhang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v5 4/8] blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config
updates
On 6/25/22 2:36 AM, Yu Kuai wrote:
> ? 2022/06/24 0:26, Michal Koutn? ??:
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 08:27:11PM +0800, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com> wrote:
>>>> Here we may allow to dispatch a bio above current slice's
>>>> calculate_bytes_allowed() if bytes_skipped is already >0.
>>>
>>> Hi, I don't expect that to happen. For example, if a bio is still
>>> throttled, then old slice is keeped with proper 'bytes_skipped',
>>> then new wait time is caculated based on (bio_size - bytes_skipped).
>>>
>>> After the bio is dispatched(I assum that other bios can't preempt),
>>
>> With this assumptions it adds up as you write. I believe we're in
>> agreement.
>>
>> It's the same assumption I made below (FIFO everywhere, i.e. no
>> reordering). So the discussed difference shouldn't really be negative
>> (and if the assumption didn't hold, so the modular arithmetic yields
>> corerct bytes_skipped value).
> Yes, nice that we're in aggreement.
>
> I'll wait to see if Tejun has any suggestions.
I flushed more emails from spam again. Please stop using the buggy
huawei address until this gets resolved, your patches are getting lost
left and right and I don't have time to go hunting for emails.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists