From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: Carl Henrik Lunde <chlunde@ping.uio.no>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: CFQ: Preemption/timeout logic reversed?
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:24:07 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090420082407.GV4593@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ed038eb20904192348m7f9f630q395baf123c3fd2ba@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, Apr 20 2009, Carl Henrik Lunde wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 08:16, Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> OK, so maybe I'm tired (I am!), but I don't get it. :)
>
> {
> if (... busy_rt_queues)
> cfq_slice_expire(timed_out=1)
> }
>
> cfq_slice_expire() {
> {
> if (timed_out)
> slice_resid = slice_end - jiffies;
> }
>
> if preempted it would be 100 - 90 = +10?
Hrmpf, that is buggy, it should be jiffies - slice_end! Presumably that
has been buggy since the shift to rb service tree, since (IIRC) that was
when it was changed from "add to slice length" to "adjust in tree".
--
Jens Axboe
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-04-20 8:24 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
2009-04-20 6:48 ` Carl Henrik Lunde
2009-04-20 8:24 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
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=20090420082407.GV4593@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).