From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Carl Henrik Lunde <chlunde@ping.uio.no>
Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: CFQ: Preemption/timeout logic reversed?
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 08:16:02 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090420061602.GO4593@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ed038eb20904191756y5a5bcf8fn53473405b3929de6@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Apr 20 2009, Carl Henrik Lunde wrote:
> Hi!
>
> It seems the preemption "bonus" logic in CFQ is reversed, a preempted
> process is given an additional delay in start time instead of a bonus.
> This seems unfair. I'm not sure if it's a good idea to let
Hmm? ->slice_resid is a long, so if we preempt the process 10 jiffies
before it was supposed to end, the resid will be -10. So it'll not
increase the rb_key, it'll decrease it.
> slice_resid grow without limit as shown below, but isn't this more
> like the way it was intended to work? Or did I misunderstand
> something?
->slice_resid is reset when it gets repositioned in the rb tree. The
intent was not to increase the slice length, but instead allow it sooner
service again.
> PS! The comment above cfq_preempt_queue seems outdated too.
Yep, the slice length comment is out dated indeed.
> Code not tested, just showing what I mean:
>
> diff --git a/block/cfq-iosched.c b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> index 664ebfd..ea18d45 100644
> --- a/block/cfq-iosched.c
> +++ b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> @@ -292,7 +292,8 @@ cfq_prio_to_slice(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct
> cfq_queue *cfqq)
> static inline void
> cfq_set_prio_slice(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *cfqq)
> {
> - cfqq->slice_end = cfq_prio_to_slice(cfqd, cfqq) + jiffies;
> + cfqq->slice_end = cfq_prio_to_slice(cfqd, cfqq) +
> cfqq->slice_resid + jiffies;
So if ->slice_resid is negative because we preempted this queue, it'll
now get a shorter slice. That's not very nice :-)
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-20 6:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-04-20 0:56 CFQ: Preemption/timeout logic reversed? Carl Henrik Lunde
2009-04-20 6:16 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2009-04-20 6:48 ` Carl Henrik Lunde
2009-04-20 8:24 ` Jens Axboe
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=20090420061602.GO4593@kernel.dk \
--to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
--cc=chlunde@ping.uio.no \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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).