From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Hongwei Qin <glqinhongwei@gmail.com>, fio@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix a rate limit issue.
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 11:58:49 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ffcf64ff-e6b9-ccc9-2607-55df278c7ade@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKvRR0Sch-xwyoG+MuyPANHD5Y+Gzd+o7m0gK27sCveKyXe_ig@mail.gmail.com>
On 1/16/21 11:45 AM, Hongwei Qin wrote:
> In the current implementation, should_check_rate() returns false
> if ddir_rw_sum(td->bytes_done)==0. Therefore, a thread may violate
> the rate if iodepth*bs > rate.
>
> This patch addresses the issue by not checking td->bytes_done in
> should_check_rate.
>
> An example of the issue:
>
> [root@localhost test]# cat fio_randwrite
> [global]
> thread
> kb_base=1000
> direct=1
> size=28GiB
> group_reporting
> io_size=16384
> ioengine=libaio
> iodepth=2
> bs=4096
> iodepth_batch_submit=1
> iodepth_batch_complete=1
> filename=/dev/qblkdev
>
> [fio_randwrite]
> rw=randwrite
> rate_iops=,1
> iodepth_batch_submit=1
> thinktime_blocks=1
> rate_cycle=1000
> thinktime=3s
> rate_ignore_thinktime=1
>
> [root@localhost test]# fio fio_randwrite
>
> blktrace output:
> 259,1 11 1 0.100550729 6135 Q WS 3541608 + 8 [fio]
> 259,1 11 2 0.100552183 6135 G WS 3541608 + 8 [fio]
> 259,1 11 3 0.100560373 6135 D WS 3541608 + 8 [fio]
> 259,1 11 4 0.100570436 6135 C WS 3541608 + 8 [0]
> 259,1 11 5 0.100599816 6135 Q WS 43470024 + 8 [fio]
> 259,1 11 6 0.100600513 6135 G WS 43470024 + 8 [fio]
> 259,1 11 7 0.100601579 6135 D WS 43470024 + 8 [fio]
> 259,1 11 8 0.100612750 6135 C WS 43470024 + 8 [0]
> 259,1 11 9 3.101034407 6135 Q WS 49511928 + 8 [fio]
> 259,1 11 10 3.101036067 6135 G WS 49511928 + 8 [fio]
> 259,1 11 11 3.101054487 6135 D WS 49511928 + 8 [fio]
> 259,1 11 12 3.101068699 6135 C WS 49511928 + 8 [0]
> 259,1 11 13 6.101267480 6135 Q WS 27599368 + 8 [fio]
> 259,1 11 14 6.101269216 6135 G WS 27599368 + 8 [fio]
> 259,1 11 15 6.101277050 6135 D WS 27599368 + 8 [fio]
> 259,1 11 16 6.101287956 6135 C WS 27599368 + 8 [0]
Your mailer has manged the patch. But I think it needs changes anyway,
so that's ok.
With your change, __should_check_rate() and should_check_rate() as the
same thing. You should rename __should_check_rate() to
should_check_rate(), get rid of the existing should_check_rate(), and
update callers that are currently using the __ version to using
should_check_rate(). Then your fix becomes and actual cleanup too, which
is nice.
--
Jens Axboe
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-01-16 18:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-01-16 18:45 [PATCH] Fix a rate limit issue Hongwei Qin
2021-01-16 18:58 ` Jens Axboe [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=ffcf64ff-e6b9-ccc9-2607-55df278c7ade@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=fio@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=glqinhongwei@gmail.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox