Message-ID: <20251009155253.14611-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com>
Date: Thu,  9 Oct 2025 23:52:53 +0800
From: chengkaitao <pilgrimtao@...il.com>
To: axboe@...nel.dk,
	dlemoal@...nel.org
Cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Chengkaitao <chengkaitao@...inos.cn>
Subject: [PATCH v2] block/mq-deadline: adjust the timeout period of the per_prio->dispatch

From: Chengkaitao <chengkaitao@...inos.cn>

When adding a request to the sort_list/fifo_list, the kernel assigns
{jiffies + dd->fifo_expire[data_dir]} to the fifo_time member.
Consequently, we must subtract {dd->fifo_expire[rq_data_dir(rq)]} in
the started_after function.

In contrast, Commit (725f22a1477c) introduced changes to utilize the
fifo_timevmember of requests on a dispatch list. The patch assigns
{jiffies} to the fifo_time member when adding a request to a dispatch
list. However, it continues to use the started_after function, which
still subtracts {dd->fifo_expire[rq_data_dir(rq)]} from the start_time.
The commit message does not explain this design choice, though it appears
reasonably justifiable since dispatch lists should inherently have higher
priority than sort_lists/fifo_lists. Thus, the default fifo_time set for
dispatch lists should be smaller than that set for sort_lists/fifo_lists.

Originally, {dd->fifo_expire[data_dir]} was exclusively used in the
deadline_check_fifo function to control the timing of scanning fifo_lists.
This subsequently determines the offset for the next scan of sort_lists
via {dd->per_prio[prio].latest_pos[data_dir]}. Therefore, a larger
{dd->fifo_expire[data_dir]} value makes it less likely for timed-out
requests to be scanned.

However, Commit (725f22a1477c) reversed the semantic meaning of
{dd->fifo_expire[data_dir]}. When adding a request to a dispatch list,
the patch only assigns {jiffies} to the fifo_time member without
compensating for the {start_time -= dd->fifo_expire[rq_data_dir(rq)]}
operation in the started_after function. This results in larger
{dd->fifo_expire[data_dir]} values making timed-out requests more likely
to be scanned. By default, fifo_expire[DD_WRITE] > fifo_expire[DD_READ],
which incorrectly gives write-IO-requests higher priority than
read-IO-requests and creates inherently illogical prioritization.

On the other hand, the Commit (725f22a1477c) merges the effects of
fifo_expire and prio_aging_expire on the same code behavior, creating
redundant interactions. To address this, our new patch introduces
numerical compensation for {dd->fifo_expire[data_dir]} when adding
requests to dispatch lists. To maintain original logic as much as
possible while enhancing dispatch list priority, we additionally
subtract {dd->prio_aging_expire / 2} from the fifo_time, with default
values, {dd->prio_aging_expire / 2} equals {dd->fifo_expire[DD_WRITE]}.

Signed-off-by: Chengkaitao <chengkaitao@...inos.cn>
---
v2: Add a more detailed commit message

Link to V1:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20250926023818.16223-1-pilgrimtao@gmail.com/

 block/mq-deadline.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/block/mq-deadline.c b/block/mq-deadline.c
index 3e741d33142d..fedc66187150 100644
--- a/block/mq-deadline.c
+++ b/block/mq-deadline.c
@@ -659,7 +659,8 @@ static void dd_insert_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, struct request *rq,
 
 	if (flags & BLK_MQ_INSERT_AT_HEAD) {
 		list_add(&rq->queuelist, &per_prio->dispatch);
-		rq->fifo_time = jiffies;
+		rq->fifo_time = jiffies + dd->fifo_expire[data_dir]
+				- dd->prio_aging_expire / 2;
 	} else {
 		deadline_add_rq_rb(per_prio, rq);
 
-- 
2.50.1 (Apple Git-155)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists