From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
To: Chuck Ebbert <76306.1226@compuserve.com>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>, linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: blk_queue_congestion_threshold()
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:47:29 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <41897C21.2030403@yahoo.com.au> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200411031913_MC3-1-8DE3-3DC@compuserve.com>
Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> Looking at this function in ll_rw_blk.c:
>
>
> static void blk_queue_congestion_threshold(struct request_queue *q)
> {
> int nr;
>
> nr = q->nr_requests - (q->nr_requests / 8) + 1;
> if (nr > q->nr_requests)
> nr = q->nr_requests;
> q->nr_congestion_on = nr;
>
> nr = q->nr_requests - (q->nr_requests / 8) - 1;
> if (nr < 1)
> nr = 1;
> q->nr_congestion_off = nr;
> }
>
>
> Why are the "on" and "off" thresholds the same, i.e. shouldn't there be some
They aren't the same, there is some hysteresis.
> hysteresis? Con Kolivas posted a patch that changed the "off" threshold to
> "nr_requests - nr_requests/8 - nr_requests/16" and it was said to be better,
> but it never made it into mainline (it also changed get_request_wait() and that
> was never merged either):
>
Patch was from Arjan. IIRC everyone agreed it looked good, and from
all the feedback I have seen it has worked well. Jens just may not
have had time to get it merged, or forgotten about it.
It can probably at least go to -mm for now.
>
> --- patches/linux-2.6.9-rc4-ck1/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c 2004-10-12 12:25:09.798003278 +0200
> +++ linux-2.6.9-rc4-ck1/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c 2004-10-12 12:25:42.959479479 +0200
> @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@
> nr = q->nr_requests;
> q->nr_congestion_on = nr;
>
> - nr = q->nr_requests - (q->nr_requests / 8) - 1;
> + nr = q->nr_requests - (q->nr_requests / 8) - (q->nr_requests/16)- 1;
> if (nr < 1)
> nr = 1;
> q->nr_congestion_off = nr;
The stuff below this hunk is a different thing altogether, and should
not be merged.
> @@ -1758,8 +1758,10 @@
> {
> DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> struct request *rq;
> + struct io_context *ioc;
>
> generic_unplug_device(q);
> + ioc = get_io_context(GFP_NOIO);
> do {
> struct request_list *rl = &q->rq;
>
> @@ -1769,7 +1771,6 @@
> rq = get_request(q, rw, GFP_NOIO);
>
> if (!rq) {
> - struct io_context *ioc;
>
> io_schedule();
>
> @@ -1779,12 +1780,11 @@
> * up to a big batch of them for a small period time.
> * See ioc_batching, ioc_set_batching
> */
> - ioc = get_io_context(GFP_NOIO);
> ioc_set_batching(q, ioc);
> - put_io_context(ioc);
> }
> finish_wait(&rl->wait[rw], &wait);
> } while (!rq);
> + put_io_context(ioc);
>
> return rq;
> }
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-11-04 0:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-11-04 0:10 blk_queue_congestion_threshold() Chuck Ebbert
2004-11-04 0:47 ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2004-11-04 9:16 ` blk_queue_congestion_threshold() 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=41897C21.2030403@yahoo.com.au \
--to=nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au \
--cc=76306.1226@compuserve.com \
--cc=axboe@suse.de \
--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