From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bfq: Fix computation of shallow depth
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 14:01:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210113130131.GD6854@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <78A91DC0-0DC9-41EE-909D-341082CE4DA5@linaro.org>
On Wed 06-01-21 18:02:03, Paolo Valente wrote:
> > Il giorno 5 gen 2021, alle ore 17:29, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> ha scritto:
> >
> > On 1/5/21 9:21 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> >> On Thu 10-12-20 10:44:33, Jan Kara wrote:
> >>> BFQ computes number of tags it allows to be allocated for each request type
> >>> based on tag bitmap. However it uses 1 << bitmap.shift as number of
> >>> available tags which is wrong. 'shift' is just an internal bitmap value
> >>> containing logarithm of how many bits bitmap uses in each bitmap word.
> >>> Thus number of tags allowed for some request types can be far to low.
> >>> Use proper bitmap.depth which has the number of tags instead.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> >>
> >> Ping Jens? I think it has fallen through the cracks?
> >
> > More like waiting for Paolo to take a look. Don't mind taking it, and
> > I'll do that now, but I do expect him to review any BFQ patches being
> > sent out.
>
> Sorry for the delay Jan. As you know, my priority is currently to
> finalize the patches I have developed with your help; and
> unfortunately I'm way behind. This is delaying also my review
> activity.
>
> As for your proposal, I remember I found the right parameter rather
> empirically. In particular, I seem to remember that the bitmap.depth
> parameter did not contain the value I needed, i.e, it did not
> contain the total number of tags. But maybe something has changed in
> the meantime. At any rate, if bitmap.depth does contain that value,
> then your replacement is ok.
Yes, bitmap.depth is the total number of tags AFAIK.
> If your replacement is ok, then I guess you may want to also fix the
> comments above the changes you propose.
Oh right, there's one paragraph in the comment that my patch made
redundant. I'll send a cleanup. Thanks for noticing.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-13 13:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-10 9:44 [PATCH] bfq: Fix computation of shallow depth Jan Kara
2021-01-05 16:21 ` Jan Kara
2021-01-05 16:29 ` Jens Axboe
2021-01-06 17:02 ` Paolo Valente
2021-01-13 13:01 ` Jan Kara [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20210113130131.GD6854@quack2.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paolo.valente@linaro.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.