From: "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: <tj@kernel.org>, <axboe@kernel.dk>, <paolo.valente@linaro.org>,
<cgroups@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 10/11] block, bfq: decrease 'num_groups_with_pending_reqs' earlier
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2022 09:10:06 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ef7bad8c-b8dd-f625-330c-9a22e303844b@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f3ed507a-7c85-cd69-3ad5-3e9c0e75c372@huawei.com>
在 2022/04/13 19:40, yukuai (C) 写道:
> 在 2022/04/13 19:28, Jan Kara 写道:
>> On Sat 05-03-22 17:12:04, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>> Currently 'num_groups_with_pending_reqs' won't be decreased when
>>> the group doesn't have any pending requests, while some child group
>>> still have pending requests. The decrement is delayed to when all the
>>> child groups doesn't have any pending requests.
>>>
>>> For example:
>>> 1) t1 issue sync io on root group, t2 and t3 issue sync io on the same
>>> child group. num_groups_with_pending_reqs is 2 now.
>>> 2) t1 stopped, num_groups_with_pending_reqs is still 2. io from t2 and
>>> t3 still can't be handled concurrently.
>>>
>>> Fix the problem by decreasing 'num_groups_with_pending_reqs'
>>> immediately upon the weights_tree removal of last bfqq of the group.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
>>
>> So I'd find the logic easier to follow if you completely removed
>> entity->in_groups_with_pending_reqs and did updates of
>> bfqd->num_groups_with_pending_reqs like:
>>
>> if (!bfqg->num_entities_with_pending_reqs++)
>> bfqd->num_groups_with_pending_reqs++;
>>
> Hi,
>
> Indeed, this is an excellent idle, and much better than the way I did.
>
> Thanks,
> Kuai
>
>> and similarly on the remove side. And there would we literally two places
>> (addition & removal from weight tree) that would need to touch these
>> counters. Pretty obvious and all can be done in patch 9.
>>
>> Honza
Hi, Jan
I think with this change, we can count root_group while activating bfqqs
that are under root_group, thus there is no need to modify
for_each_entity(or fake bfq_sched_data) any more.
The special case is that weight racing bfqqs are not inserted into
weights tree, and I think this can be handled by adding a fake
bfq_weight_counter for such bfqqs.
What do you think ?
Kuai
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-15 1:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-03-05 9:11 [PATCH -next 00/11] support concurrent sync io for bfq on a specail occasion Yu Kuai
2022-03-05 9:11 ` [PATCH -next 01/11] block, bfq: add new apis to iterate bfq entities Yu Kuai
2022-03-05 9:11 ` [PATCH -next 02/11] block, bfq: apply news apis where root group is not expected Yu Kuai
2022-04-13 9:50 ` Jan Kara
2022-04-13 10:59 ` Jan Kara
2022-04-13 11:11 ` yukuai (C)
2022-03-05 9:11 ` [PATCH -next 03/11] block, bfq: cleanup for __bfq_activate_requeue_entity() Yu Kuai
2022-03-05 9:11 ` [PATCH -next 04/11] block, bfq: move the increasement of 'num_groups_with_pending_reqs' to it's caller Yu Kuai
2022-03-05 9:11 ` [PATCH -next 05/11] block, bfq: count root group into 'num_groups_with_pending_reqs' Yu Kuai
2022-04-13 11:05 ` Jan Kara
2022-03-05 9:12 ` [PATCH -next 06/11] block, bfq: do not idle if only one cgroup is activated Yu Kuai
2022-03-05 9:12 ` [PATCH -next 07/11] block, bfq: only count parent bfqg when bfqq " Yu Kuai
2022-03-05 9:12 ` [PATCH -next 08/11] block, bfq: record how many queues have pending requests in bfq_group Yu Kuai
2022-03-05 9:12 ` [PATCH -next 09/11] block, bfq: move forward __bfq_weights_tree_remove() Yu Kuai
2022-03-05 9:12 ` [PATCH -next 10/11] block, bfq: decrease 'num_groups_with_pending_reqs' earlier Yu Kuai
2022-04-13 11:28 ` Jan Kara
2022-04-13 11:40 ` yukuai (C)
2022-04-15 1:10 ` yukuai (C) [this message]
2022-04-19 9:49 ` Jan Kara
2022-04-19 11:37 ` yukuai (C)
2022-04-21 8:17 ` Jan Kara
2022-03-05 9:12 ` [PATCH -next 11/11] block, bfq: cleanup bfqq_group() Yu Kuai
2022-03-11 6:31 ` [PATCH -next 00/11] support concurrent sync io for bfq on a specail occasion yukuai (C)
2022-03-17 1:49 ` yukuai (C)
2022-03-18 12:38 ` Paolo Valente
2022-03-19 2:34 ` yukuai (C)
2022-03-25 7:30 ` yukuai (C)
2022-04-01 3:43 ` yukuai (C)
2022-04-08 6:50 ` yukuai (C)
2022-04-13 11:12 ` Jan Kara
2022-04-13 11:33 ` yukuai (C)
2022-04-26 14:24 ` Paolo Valente
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=ef7bad8c-b8dd-f625-330c-9a22e303844b@huawei.com \
--to=yukuai3@huawei.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paolo.valente@linaro.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=yi.zhang@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