[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y35l3cRfYNgCzBgC@slm.duckdns.org>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2022 08:26:37 -1000
From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@...wei.com>
Cc: josef@...icpanda.com, axboe@...nel.dk, cgroups@...r.kernel.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] blk-throttle: simpfy low limit reached check in
throtl_tg_can_upgrade
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 02:03:55PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> -static bool throtl_tg_can_upgrade(struct throtl_grp *tg)
> +static bool throtl_tg_reach_low_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, int rw)
> {
> struct throtl_service_queue *sq = &tg->service_queue;
> - bool read_limit, write_limit;
> + bool limit = tg->bps[rw][LIMIT_LOW] || tg->iops[rw][LIMIT_LOW];
>
> /*
> * if cgroup reaches low limit (if low limit is 0, the cgroup always
> * reaches), it's ok to upgrade to next limit
> */
> - read_limit = tg->bps[READ][LIMIT_LOW] || tg->iops[READ][LIMIT_LOW];
> - write_limit = tg->bps[WRITE][LIMIT_LOW] || tg->iops[WRITE][LIMIT_LOW];
> - if (!read_limit && !write_limit)
> - return true;
> - if (read_limit && sq->nr_queued[READ] &&
> - (!write_limit || sq->nr_queued[WRITE]))
> - return true;
> - if (write_limit && sq->nr_queued[WRITE] &&
> - (!read_limit || sq->nr_queued[READ]))
> + return !limit || sq->nr_queued[rw].
> +}
> +
> +static bool throtl_tg_can_upgrade(struct throtl_grp *tg)
> +{
> + if (throtl_tg_reach_low_limit(tg, READ) &&
> + throtl_tg_reach_low_limit(tg, WRITE))
Are the conditions being checked actually equivalent? If so, can you
explicitly explain that these are equivalent conditions? If not, what are we
changing exactly?
Thanks.
--
tejun
Powered by blists - more mailing lists