Re: [PATCH 02/20] io-controller: Common flat fair queuing code in elevaotor layer

Fabio Checconi
2009-05-28T08:52:19Z

> From: Nauman Rafique <nauman@google.com>
> Date: Wed, May 27, 2009 01:53:59PM -0700
>
> On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> > This is common fair queuing code in elevator layer. This is controlled by
...
> > +/**
> > + * __bfq_lookup_next_entity - return the first eligible entity in @st.
> > + * @st: the service tree.
> > + *
> > + * Update the virtual time in @st and return the first eligible entity
> > + * it contains.
> > + */
> > +static struct io_entity *__bfq_lookup_next_entity(struct io_service_tree *st)
> > +{
> > + struct io_entity *entity;
> > +
> > + if (RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&st->active))
> > + return NULL;
> > +
> > + bfq_update_vtime(st);
>
> Vivek, Paolo, Fabio,
> Over here we call bfq_update_vtime(), and this function could have
> been called even when we are just doing a lookup (and not an extract).
> So vtime is updated while we are not really selecting the next queue
> for service (for an example, see elv_preempt_queue()). This can result
> in a call to update_vtime when only an entity with small weight (say
> weight=1) is backlogged and another entity with bigger weight (say 10)
> is getting serviced so it is not in the tree (we extract the entity
> which is getting service). This results in a big vtime jump to the
> start time of the entity with weight 1 (entity of weight 1 would have
> big start times, as it has small weight). Now when another entity with
> bigger weight (say 90) gets backlogged, it is assigned a new vtime
> from service tree's vtime, causing it to get a big value. In the
> meanwhile, iog for weight 10 keeps getting service for many quantums,
> as it was continuously backlogged.
>
> The problem happens because we extract an entity (removing it from the
> tree) while it is getting service, and do vtime jumps based on what is
> still in the tree. I think we need to add an extra check on the vtime
> of the entity in service, before we take a vtime jump.
>
> I have actually seen this happening when trying to debug on of my
> tests. Please let me know what you think.
>

IIRC this behavior is not coming from bfq, as the original code
called __bfq_lookup_next_entity() without extraction only if there
was no entity under service (in bfq_update_next_active() it checked
for sd->active_entity != NULL).

I've not looked at the details of what changed, thus I don't know
why the old behavior cannot be maintained, but the virtual time jump
should be avoided in this case (and it is not specified by the wf2q+
algorithm).

[ sorry for the excessive trimming, but due to some charset problems
the quotations were unreadable ]