From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47501)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <benoit.canet@irqsave.net>) id 1VEydS-0005Gu-Cx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 05:35:32 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <benoit.canet@irqsave.net>) id 1VEydM-0003Oo-96
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 05:35:26 -0400
Received: from nodalink.pck.nerim.net ([62.212.105.220]:34258
	helo=paradis.irqsave.net) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <benoit.canet@irqsave.net>) id 1VEydM-0003Of-0M
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 29 Aug 2013 05:35:20 -0400
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2013 11:37:20 +0200
From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Beno=EEt?= Canet <benoit.canet@irqsave.net>
Message-ID: <20130829093719.GC5142@irqsave.net>
References: <1377702441-22236-1-git-send-email-benoit@irqsave.net>
	<20130829090945.GA31923@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20130829090945.GA31923@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH V7 0/5] Continuous Leaky Bucket Throttling
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@gmail.com>
Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com

> 1. We keep modifying the timer in bdrv_io_limits_intercept() on each
>    request even when it has already been set.  I think we'll set it to
>    the same absolute timestamp, modulo numerical issues.  Should we
>    avoid doing this?

I could check that the timer is not pending before setting it.

>=20
> 2. bdrv_io_limits_resched() only wakes up requests of the same type
>    (read/write).  Does this mean that BPS_TOTAL/IOPS_TOTAL requests
>    will have to wait until the other request type timer expires instead
>    of piggybacking on request completion?
>=20
>    Is this a problem?  If no, then why piggyback on request completion
>    at all since apparently it works fine when we don't wake up the othe=
r
>    request type?

It only wakes up the same request type to be coherent with the two reques=
ts
queues and two timers strategy.
The ultimate goal of this is to be able to do:
block_set_io_throttle virtio1 0 0 0 0 3000 1
The code can cope with this and do independent throttling for reads and
writes.

Best regards

Beno=EEt