From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
Cc: tj@kernel.org, axboe@kernel.dk, cgroups@vger.kernel.org,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
yi.zhang@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2 1/2] blk-throttle: fix that io throttle can only work for single bio
Date: Wed, 18 May 2022 17:50:56 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YoTBgJhhA14r61ZX@T590> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220518072751.1188163-2-yukuai3@huawei.com>
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 03:27:50PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> commit 9f5ede3c01f9 ("block: throttle split bio in case of iops limit")
> introduce a new problem, for example:
>
> [root@localhost ~]# echo "8:0 1024" > /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio/blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
> [root@localhost ~]# echo $$ > /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio/cgroup.procs
> [root@localhost ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=10k count=1 oflag=direct &
> [1] 620
> [root@localhost ~]# dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=10k count=1 oflag=direct &
> [2] 626
> [root@localhost ~]# 1+0 records in
> 1+0 records out
> 10240 bytes (10 kB, 10 KiB) copied, 10.0038 s, 1.0 kB/s1+0 records in
> 1+0 records out
>
> 10240 bytes (10 kB, 10 KiB) copied, 9.23076 s, 1.1 kB/s
> -> the second bio is issued after 10s instead of 20s.
>
> This is because if some bios are already queued, current bio is queued
> directly and the flag 'BIO_THROTTLED' is set. And later, when former
> bios are dispatched, this bio will be dispatched without waiting at all,
> this is due to tg_with_in_bps_limit() return 0 for this bio.
>
> In order to fix the problem, don't skip flaged bio in
> tg_with_in_bps_limit(), and for the problem that split bio can be
> double accounted, compensate the over-accounting in __blk_throtl_bio().
>
> Fixes: 9f5ede3c01f9 ("block: throttle split bio in case of iops limit")
> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
> ---
> block/blk-throttle.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
> index 447e1b8722f7..6f69859eae23 100644
> --- a/block/blk-throttle.c
> +++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
> @@ -811,7 +811,7 @@ static bool tg_with_in_bps_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
> unsigned int bio_size = throtl_bio_data_size(bio);
>
> /* no need to throttle if this bio's bytes have been accounted */
> - if (bps_limit == U64_MAX || bio_flagged(bio, BIO_THROTTLED)) {
> + if (bps_limit == U64_MAX) {
> if (wait)
> *wait = 0;
> return true;
> @@ -921,11 +921,8 @@ static void throtl_charge_bio(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio)
> unsigned int bio_size = throtl_bio_data_size(bio);
>
> /* Charge the bio to the group */
> - if (!bio_flagged(bio, BIO_THROTTLED)) {
> - tg->bytes_disp[rw] += bio_size;
> - tg->last_bytes_disp[rw] += bio_size;
> - }
> -
> + tg->bytes_disp[rw] += bio_size;
> + tg->last_bytes_disp[rw] += bio_size;
> tg->io_disp[rw]++;
> tg->last_io_disp[rw]++;
>
> @@ -2121,6 +2118,21 @@ bool __blk_throtl_bio(struct bio *bio)
> tg->last_low_overflow_time[rw] = jiffies;
> throtl_downgrade_check(tg);
> throtl_upgrade_check(tg);
> +
> + /*
> + * re-entered bio has accounted bytes already, so try to
> + * compensate previous over-accounting. However, if new
> + * slice is started, just forget it.
> + */
> + if (bio_flagged(bio, BIO_THROTTLED)) {
> + unsigned int bio_size = throtl_bio_data_size(bio);
> +
> + if (tg->bytes_disp[rw] >= bio_size)
> + tg->bytes_disp[rw] -= bio_size;
> + if (tg->last_bytes_disp[rw] > bio_size)
> + tg->last_bytes_disp[rw] -= bio_size;
The above check should be:
if (tg->last_bytes_disp[rw] >= bio_size)
Otherwise, this patch looks fine for me.
Thanks,
Ming
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-18 9:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-18 7:27 [PATCH -next v2 0/2] bugfix for blk-throttle Yu Kuai
2022-05-18 7:27 ` [PATCH -next v2 1/2] blk-throttle: fix that io throttle can only work for single bio Yu Kuai
2022-05-18 9:50 ` Ming Lei [this message]
2022-05-18 7:27 ` [PATCH -next v2 2/2] blk-throttle: fix io hung due to configuration updates Yu Kuai
2022-05-18 15:52 ` kernel test robot
2022-05-19 2:11 ` yukuai (C)
2022-05-19 3:01 ` yukuai (C)
2022-05-19 7:01 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2022-05-19 7:06 ` yukuai (C)
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=YoTBgJhhA14r61ZX@T590 \
--to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.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