linux-block.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
Cc: tj@kernel.org, josef@toxicpanda.com, axboe@kernel.dk,
	cgroups@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com,
	yangerkun@huawei.com, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] blk-throttle: fix off-by-one jiffies wait_time
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 09:24:07 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z70btzRaN83FbTJp@fedora> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <611f02a8-8430-16cf-46e5-e9417982b077@huaweicloud.com>

On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 08:03:32PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 在 2025/02/24 16:56, Ming Lei 写道:
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 03:03:18PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
> > > Hi, Ming!
> > > 
> > > 在 2025/02/24 11:28, Ming Lei 写道:
> > > > throtl_trim_slice() returns immediately if throtl_slice_used()
> > > > is true.
> > > > 
> > > > And throtl_slice_used() checks jiffies in [start, end] via time_in_range(),
> > > > so if `start <= jiffies <= end', it still returns false.
> > > 
> > > Yes, I misread the code, by thinking throtl_slice_used() will return
> > > true if the slice is still used. :(
> > > 
> > > 
> > > > > BTW, throtl_trim_slice() looks like problematic:
> > > > > 
> > > > > -       if (bytes_trim <= 0 && io_trim <= 0)
> > > > > +       if (bytes_trim <= 0 || io_trim <= 0 ||
> > > > > +           tg->bytes_disp[rw] < bytes_trim || tg->io_disp[rw] < io_trim)
> > > > >                   return;
> > > > That is exactly what my patch is doing, just taking deviation and
> > > > timeout into account, also U64_MAX limit has to be excluded.
> > > Yes, perhaps you can add some comments in the last two conditions of
> > > your patch.
> > 
> > Yes, we need to add comment on the check, how about the following words?
> > 
> > ```
> > 
> > If actually rate doesn't match with expected rate, do not trim slice
> > otherwise the present rate control info is lost, we don't have chance
> > to compensate it in the following period of this slice any more.
> 
> So, I just give your patch a test, and result is 1.3s while 1s is
> expected. While debuging, a new idea come up in mind. :)
> 
> How about keep at least one slice out of consideration from
> throtl_trim_slice()? With following patch, the result is between
> 1.01-1.03s in my VM.

That is easy to get the same result with the approach I suggested,
another big benefit: it is adaptive, and blk-throttle may get
simplified.

> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
> index 8d149aff9fd0..5207c85098a5 100644
> --- a/block/blk-throttle.c
> +++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
> @@ -604,9 +604,12 @@ static inline void throtl_trim_slice(struct throtl_grp
> *tg, bool rw)
> 
>         time_elapsed = rounddown(jiffies - tg->slice_start[rw],
>                                  tg->td->throtl_slice);
> -       if (!time_elapsed)
> +       /* don't trim slice until at least 2 slice is used */
> +       if (time_elapsed < tg->td->throtl_slice * 2)
>                 return;

If you just want to fix throtl/001, the above patch might
work(sometimes, it might not, and timer may expire by 2 jiffies), but it
is easy to fail other tests, such as, reduce the bps limit a bit, and
increase BS a bit to make the IO cross exactly two slices.

Also the big question is that how you can make sure that rate is always
good when the window is >= 2 slice?


Thanks,
Ming


  reply	other threads:[~2025-02-25  1:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-02-22  9:28 [PATCH 0/2] blk-throttle: fix off-by-one jiffies wait_time Yu Kuai
2025-02-22  9:28 ` [PATCH 1/2] blk-throttle: cleanup throtl_extend_slice() Yu Kuai
2025-02-25 20:30   ` Tejun Heo
2025-02-22  9:28 ` [PATCH 2/2] blk-throttle: fix off-by-one jiffies wait_time Yu Kuai
2025-02-22 12:16   ` Ming Lei
2025-02-24  2:39     ` Yu Kuai
2025-02-24  3:28       ` Ming Lei
2025-02-24  7:03         ` Yu Kuai
2025-02-24  8:56           ` Ming Lei
2025-02-24 12:03             ` Yu Kuai
2025-02-25  1:24               ` Ming Lei [this message]
2025-02-25  2:07                 ` Yu Kuai
2025-02-25  2:28                   ` Ming Lei
2025-02-25  3:12                     ` Yu Kuai
2025-02-25  8:21                       ` Ming Lei
2025-02-25 11:09                         ` Yu Kuai
2025-02-25 12:00                           ` Ming Lei
2025-02-25 10:51 ` [PATCH 0/2] " Michal Koutný

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=Z70btzRaN83FbTJp@fedora \
    --to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.org \
    --cc=yangerkun@huawei.com \
    --cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
    --cc=yukuai1@huaweicloud.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).