From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: FUJITA Tomonori <fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
Cc: stern@rowland.harvard.edu, James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com,
linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Problems with the block-layer timeouts
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:24:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20081107112449.GN21867@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20081107130552K.fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp>
On Fri, Nov 07 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:23:54 +0100
> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 06 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > > On Mon, 3 Nov 2008 09:52:48 +0100
> > > Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > In blk_del_timer(), there's no reason to test q->rq_timed_out_fn. If
> > > > > the method pointer is NULL then req->deadline would be 0 anyway. In
> > > > > addition, req->deadline should be set to 0 and the end of the routine,
> > > > > just in case req gets requeued.
> > > > >
> > > > > In blk_add_timer(), the line
> > > > >
> > > > > expiry = round_jiffies(req->deadline);
> > > > >
> > > > > is not optimal. round_jiffies() will sometimes round a value _down_ to
> > > > > the nearest second. But blk_rq_timed_out_timer() tests whether
> > > > > req->deadline is in the past -- and if the deadline was rounded down
> > > > > then this won't be true the first time through. You wind up getting an
> > > > > unnecessary timer interrupt. Instead there should be a
> > > > > round_jiffies_up() utility routine, and it should be used in both
> > > > > blk_add_timer() and blk_rq_timed_out_timer().
> > > >
> > > > Very good point, we do indeed want a round_jiffies_up() for this!
> > >
> > > Just out of curiosity, why do we need to use round_jiffies here? We
> > > didn't do that for SCSI, right?
> >
> > We don't have to, but given that we don't care about exact timeouts, we
> > may as well. It's not a new thing, we've done that since pretty much the
> > beginning of the generic timeout development.
>
> I'm not sure that the users of the timeout feature can control exact
> timeouts because the block layer doesn't let the users directly play
> with the timer. elv_dequeue_request() is not the exact time that the
> users want to start the timer. Instead, the block layer hides the
> details behind the elevator (note that as I said before, I think that
> it's the right thing). So the round_jiffies in the block layer doesn't
> make sense to me. I prefer remove them instead of adding a bunch of
> round_jiffies_up_* (I bet that some of them will never be used).
I don't understand your concern, to be honest. We only need to round up
once, and that is when we add/mod the timer. And we do that simply to
play nice and group the timout with other timers, to save a bit of
power.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-11-07 11:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-11-01 16:54 Problems with the block-layer timeouts Alan Stern
2008-11-02 20:35 ` Mike Anderson
2008-11-03 8:52 ` Jens Axboe
2008-11-03 14:18 ` James Smart
2008-11-03 17:23 ` Jens Axboe
2008-11-03 15:59 ` Alan Stern
2008-11-03 16:39 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-03 17:07 ` Alan Stern
2008-11-03 17:27 ` Jens Axboe
2008-11-04 3:01 ` Tejun Heo
2008-11-06 0:01 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-11-06 7:23 ` Jens Axboe
2008-11-07 4:05 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-11-07 11:24 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2008-11-11 6:54 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-11-11 17:11 ` Alan Stern
2008-11-11 19:19 ` Jens Axboe
2008-11-12 2:08 ` FUJITA Tomonori
2008-11-13 10:34 ` Jens Axboe
2008-11-17 3:48 ` FUJITA Tomonori
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=20081107112449.GN21867@kernel.dk \
--to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com \
--cc=fujita.tomonori@lab.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=stern@rowland.harvard.edu \
/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