Re: [PATCH RFC v2 6/6] blk-throtl: switch to use rq_qos

Tejun Heo
2024-04-16T17:14:05Z

Hello,

On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 10:17:29PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> > > This is a half-way conversion, right? You're adding a dedicated hook to
> > > rq_qos and none of the other hooks can be used by blk-throtl. Even
> > > the name,
>
> Actually, rq_qos_exit() is used as well for destroy blk-throtl.

I see.

> > > rq_qos_throttle_bio(), becomes a misnomer. I'm not really sure this makes
> > > things better or worse. It makes certain things a bit cleaner but other
> > > things nastier. I don't know.
> >
> > Yes, the final goal is making all blk-cgroup policies modular, and this
> > patch use rq-qos to prevent exposing blk-throtle to block layer, like
> > other policies.
>
> After thinking this a bit more, I still think probably rq_qos is a
> better choice, and there is something that I want to discuss.
>
> There are two different direction, first is swith blk-throttle to
> rq_qos_throttle() as well, which is called for each rq:
>
> 1) For, rq-based device, why blk-throtl must throttle before
> rq_qos_throttle()? And blk-throtl have to handle the bio split case
> seperately. And it looks like blk-throttle can switch to use
> rq_qos_throttle() with the benefit that io split does't need
> special handling.
>
> 2) blk-throtl treats split IO as additional iops, while it ignores
> merge IO, this looks wrong to me. If multiple bio merged into one
> request, iostat will see just one IO. And after switching to rq_qos,
> bio merge case can be handled easily as well.

If we could properly convert blk-throtl to rq-qos, that'd be great. The only
problem is that there probably are users who are using blk-throtl with
bio-based drivers because blk-throtl has supported that for a very long
time, so we're in a bit of bind for blk-throtl.

> Another is still add a rq_qos_throttle_bio(perhaps another name?), and
> meanwhile iocost can benefit from this new helper as well. Because
> iocost really is based on bio, currently it must handle the io merge
> case by debt.

I really don't think adding a different operation mode to rq-qos or iocost
is a good idea. I'd much rather keep blk-throtl where it is and come up with
a better replacement (e.g. iocost based .max throttling) in the future.

Thanks.

--
tejun