From: Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>
To: "hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
"axboe@fb.com" <axboe@fb.com>,
"ming.lei@redhat.com" <ming.lei@redhat.com>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"tom81094@gmail.com" <tom81094@gmail.com>,
"paolo.valente@linaro.org" <paolo.valente@linaro.org>,
Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@wdc.com>,
"linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org>,
"oleksandr@natalenko.name" <oleksandr@natalenko.name>,
"john.garry@huawei.com" <john.garry@huawei.com>,
"osandov@fb.com" <osandov@fb.com>,
"loberman@redhat.com" <loberman@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V9 4/7] blk-mq: introduce .get_budget and .put_budget in blk_mq_ops
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2017 23:43:44 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1507938223.13345.66.camel@wdc.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171013180532.29304-5-ming.lei@redhat.com>
On Sat, 2017-10-14 at 02:05 +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> @@ -89,19 +89,36 @@ static bool blk_mq_sched_restart_hctx(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> return false;
> }
>
> -static void blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> +static bool blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
Shouldn't the meaning of the return value of this function be documented?
> {
> struct request_queue *q = hctx->queue;
> struct elevator_queue *e = q->elevator;
> LIST_HEAD(rq_list);
>
> do {
> - struct request *rq = e->type->ops.mq.dispatch_request(hctx);
> + struct request *rq;
> + blk_status_t ret;
>
> - if (!rq)
> + if (e->type->ops.mq.has_work &&
> + !e->type->ops.mq.has_work(hctx))
> break;
> +
> + ret = blk_mq_get_dispatch_budget(hctx);
> + if (ret == BLK_STS_RESOURCE)
> + return true;
> +
> + rq = e->type->ops.mq.dispatch_request(hctx);
> + if (!rq) {
> + blk_mq_put_dispatch_budget(hctx, true);
> + break;
> + } else if (ret != BLK_STS_OK) {
> + blk_mq_end_request(rq, ret);
> + continue;
> + }
> list_add(&rq->queuelist, &rq_list);
> - } while (blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(q, &rq_list));
> + } while (blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list(q, &rq_list, true));
> +
> + return false;
> }
This means that the request in rq_list becomes the owner of the budget allocated
by blk_mq_get_dispatch_budget(). Shouldn't that be mentioned as a comment above
blk_mq_dispatch_rq_list()?
> + if (run_queue) {
> + if (!blk_mq_sched_needs_restart(hctx) &&
> + !test_bit(BLK_MQ_S_TAG_WAITING, &hctx->state)) {
> + blk_mq_sched_mark_restart_hctx(hctx);
> + blk_mq_run_hw_queue(hctx, true);
> + }
> }
> }
The above if-statement can be changed from a nested if into a single
if-statement.
Additionally, why has the code been added to blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests()
that reruns the queue if blk_mq_get_dispatch_budget() returned BLK_STS_RESOURCE?
Is that code necessary or can it be left out?
> +static inline void blk_mq_put_dispatch_budget(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx,
> + bool got_budget)
> +{
> + struct request_queue *q = hctx->queue;
> +
> + if (q->mq_ops->put_budget && got_budget)
> + q->mq_ops->put_budget(hctx);
> +}
So the above function is passed a boolean as second argument and all what
that boolean is used for is to decide whether or not the function is executed?
Sorry but I think that's wrong and that the second argument should be removed
and that it should be evaluated by the caller instead of inside
blk_mq_put_dispatch_budget().
Bart.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-13 23:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-13 18:05 [PATCH V9 0/7] blk-mq-sched: improve sequential I/O performance Ming Lei
2017-10-13 18:05 ` [PATCH V9 1/7] blk-mq-sched: dispatch from scheduler only after progress is made on ->dispatch Ming Lei
2017-10-13 18:05 ` [PATCH V9 2/7] blk-mq-sched: move actual dispatching into one helper Ming Lei
2017-10-13 18:05 ` [PATCH V9 3/7] sbitmap: introduce __sbitmap_for_each_set() Ming Lei
2017-10-13 18:05 ` [PATCH V9 4/7] blk-mq: introduce .get_budget and .put_budget in blk_mq_ops Ming Lei
2017-10-13 23:43 ` Bart Van Assche [this message]
2017-10-14 7:34 ` Ming Lei
2017-10-13 18:05 ` [PATCH V9 5/7] blk-mq-sched: improve dispatching from sw queue Ming Lei
2017-10-13 18:05 ` [PATCH V9 6/7] SCSI: allow to pass null rq to scsi_prep_state_check() Ming Lei
2017-10-13 23:16 ` Bart Van Assche
2017-10-14 8:06 ` Ming Lei
2017-10-13 18:05 ` [PATCH V9 7/7] SCSI: implement .get_budget and .put_budget for blk-mq Ming Lei
2017-10-13 19:08 ` [PATCH V9 0/7] blk-mq-sched: improve sequential I/O performance Jens Axboe
2017-10-13 19:21 ` Jens Axboe
2017-10-13 20:23 ` Jens Axboe
2017-10-14 5:23 ` Ming Lei
2017-10-14 7:10 ` Ming Lei
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=1507938223.13345.66.camel@wdc.com \
--to=bart.vanassche@wdc.com \
--cc=axboe@fb.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=loberman@redhat.com \
--cc=ming.lei@redhat.com \
--cc=oleksandr@natalenko.name \
--cc=osandov@fb.com \
--cc=paolo.valente@linaro.org \
--cc=tom81094@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