From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10AA2C28D13 for ; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 07:26:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233215AbiHVH0G (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Aug 2022 03:26:06 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:46038 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232526AbiHVHZ4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Aug 2022 03:25:56 -0400 Received: from mail-pf1-x433.google.com (mail-pf1-x433.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::433]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0F1929CA3; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 00:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pf1-x433.google.com with SMTP id y141so9504782pfb.7; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 00:25:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:from:to:cc; bh=msDkfbAvjPj8tG1+VbcyJyurZyD89z+69jjtCZT96Cw=; b=Wm8Ji1NHluqt74CopL6xSV0sx0lEWK55ZRr+ompfbpqjBuTbFHU8kiCO46OANmUSMP +I4sNY9RvnDKp3fB0C6rXVUNkiWkILHs2+xC1t+U2NHmbvSspDBomtr/f3aHzGVznzv/ SaNQChOeWNEV1BOjEp3byhGvdsTZalvTGy9HQ9UcsA/bDVY4mIxl20ARf35ceYjgT4LI wKabvHKz4Bb3n66vzbfYgHaHWzE2gLVwbNq9SJrIAPwZNnA1+urGvpvqHxuFakHMQlBb t3P8IVcve2cLPI12k+dFsMDNBYWncQ+t0xzVus9MqggqoXYR/JadregHgH8nkRjEBUV+ 3AVw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:sender:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=msDkfbAvjPj8tG1+VbcyJyurZyD89z+69jjtCZT96Cw=; b=wFvLJPDLHxO5s6CAgjlIlBR0b4JH+dCaRJTx52pizjcYu+zCSmIuQsxQlqO4jsmK+3 e2B6SB7Z6hqRvUeq8nHBbAXOwSsr7H/qnBG/+pTnueupK4PJIgEZlNwb3Gby3xKtDMCc rI/3EHS52V7AF42EWd18eUAnlIVytLURDoEBR81HFol47QA5IMonkRxVHtQPCk10/1Sj v6g5bWd9u9Rx6+XByqdHm8s5GNm5EuDkUQjdJHjerAmkUTBBdN8Yn8L3OKmznAWkzk44 GDeieQeJGEtTm+DR0yX4r+q/Z5l60UWRzxQHaDWk31s+z1BUd7p0X0A71pGDteTR1gj/ 7bHQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo0bJ1VmCBZ8JxVNXwGjABWHvMMry/BmoFgOqxCftKUObXkqI5Fk XZNIgybRsBnnAp2Yhc0ncoU= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR6rUdzkK82sm1UBcvd5xL8mxZXyJiI+lw59UgR63AlGd2zrshfJy4MVXbMQxPnnTsDxddlEGQ== X-Received: by 2002:a63:d0:0:b0:41b:c075:acb5 with SMTP id 199-20020a6300d0000000b0041bc075acb5mr15768848pga.480.1661153154100; Mon, 22 Aug 2022 00:25:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (2603-800c-1a02-1bae-a7fa-157f-969a-4cde.res6.spectrum.com. [2603:800c:1a02:1bae:a7fa:157f:969a:4cde]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i5-20020a635405000000b004298d7b6e70sm6717648pgb.54.2022.08.22.00.25.53 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 22 Aug 2022 00:25:53 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Tejun Heo Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2022 21:25:52 -1000 From: Tejun Heo To: Yu Kuai Cc: mkoutny@suse.com, axboe@kernel.dk, ming.lei@redhat.com, cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com, "yukuai (C)" Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/9] blk-throttle: fix that io throttle can only work for single bio Message-ID: References: <20220802140415.2960284-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> <20220802140415.2960284-2-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> <712e0f29-94ba-d3d3-ce21-cba4d6092008@huaweicloud.com> <83c8b253-2ebb-5af6-8ce1-6dc3b84cf182@huaweicloud.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org Hello, On Mon, Aug 22, 2022 at 11:06:44AM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote: > While implementing the new method, I found that there seems to be a > misunderstanding here, the code seems to try to add flag to split bio > so that it won't be throttled again for bps limit, however: > > 1) for blk throttle, split bio is issued directly and will never be > throttled again, while orignal bio will go through throttle path again. > 2) if cloned bio is directed to a new disk, the flag is cleared anyway. Doesn't that make the current code correct then? But you were seeing incorrect behaviors, right? Thanks. -- tejun