Re: [PATCH 7/7] blk-iocost: Factor out the base vrate change into a separate function

[Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>]

> Hello,
> 
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:33:36AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
>> @@ -2320,45 +2358,11 @@ static void ioc_timer_fn(struct timer_list *timer)
>>   	ioc->busy_level = clamp(ioc->busy_level, -1000, 1000);
>>   
>>   	if (ioc->busy_level > 0 || (ioc->busy_level < 0 && !nr_lagging)) {
>> -		u64 vrate = ioc->vtime_base_rate;
>> -		u64 vrate_min = ioc->vrate_min, vrate_max = ioc->vrate_max;
> ...
>> +		trace_iocost_ioc_vrate_adj(ioc, ioc->vtime_base_rate,
>> +					   missed_ppm, rq_wait_pct,
>>   					   nr_lagging, nr_shortages);
>> -
>> -		ioc->vtime_base_rate = vrate;
>> -		ioc_refresh_margins(ioc);
>>   	} else if (ioc->busy_level != prev_busy_level || nr_lagging) {
>>   		trace_iocost_ioc_vrate_adj(ioc, atomic64_read(&ioc->vtime_rate),
>>   					   missed_ppm, rq_wait_pct, nr_lagging,
> 
> I think it'd be better to factor out the surrounding if/else block together

OK.

> (as early exit if blocks). Also, how about ioc_adjust_base_vrate()?

Sure, will rename it in next version. Thanks.