From: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@suse.de>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, David Jeffery <djeffery@redhat.com>,
Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@huaweicloud.com>,
Chengming Zhou <zhouchengming@bytedance.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] sbitmap: fix batching wakeup
Date: Fri, 21 Jul 2023 12:35:43 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87jzut43z4.fsf@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230721095715.232728-1-ming.lei@redhat.com> (Ming Lei's message of "Fri, 21 Jul 2023 17:57:15 +0800")
Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com> writes:
> From: David Jeffery <djeffery@redhat.com>
>
> Current code supposes that it is enough to provide forward progress by just
> waking up one wait queue after one completion batch is done.
>
> Unfortunately this way isn't enough, cause waiter can be added to
> wait queue just after it is woken up.
>
> Follows one example(64 depth, wake_batch is 8)
>
> 1) all 64 tags are active
>
> 2) in each wait queue, there is only one single waiter
>
> 3) each time one completion batch(8 completions) wakes up just one waiter in each wait
> queue, then immediately one new sleeper is added to this wait queue
>
> 4) after 64 completions, 8 waiters are wakeup, and there are still 8 waiters in each
> wait queue
>
> 5) after another 8 active tags are completed, only one waiter can be wakeup, and the other 7
> can't be waken up anymore.
>
> Turns out it isn't easy to fix this problem, so simply wakeup enough waiters for
> single batch.
yes, I think this makes sense. When working on this algorithm I remember
I considered it (thus wake_up_nr being ready), but ended up believing it
wasn't needed. please take:
Reviewed-by: Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@suse.de>
I wonder how likely it is to reach it. Did you get a bug report?
Thanks,
--
Gabriel Krisman Bertazi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-21 16:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-21 9:57 [RFC PATCH] sbitmap: fix batching wakeup Ming Lei
2023-07-21 10:40 ` Keith Busch
2023-07-21 10:50 ` Ming Lei
2023-07-21 17:38 ` David Jeffery
2023-07-21 11:51 ` Keith Busch
2023-07-21 16:35 ` Gabriel Krisman Bertazi [this message]
2023-07-22 2:42 ` Ming Lei
2023-07-21 17:29 ` Jens Axboe
2023-07-21 17:40 ` Jens Axboe
2023-08-02 16:05 ` Jan Kara
2023-08-08 8:18 ` Ming Lei
2023-08-08 10:30 ` Jan Kara
2024-01-15 9:51 ` Kemeng Shi
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=87jzut43z4.fsf@suse.de \
--to=krisman@suse.de \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=djeffery@redhat.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=shikemeng@huaweicloud.com \
--cc=zhouchengming@bytedance.com \
/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.