On 12/19/2016 11:21 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:

quoted

Il giorno 19 dic 2016, alle ore 16:20, Jens Axboe [off-list ref] ha scritto:

On 12/19/2016 04:32 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:

quoted

quoted

Il giorno 17 dic 2016, alle ore 01:12, Jens Axboe [off-list ref] ha scritto:

This is version 4 of this patchset, version 3 was posted here:

https://marc.info/?l=linux-block&m=148178513407631&w=2

From the discussion last time, I looked into the feasibility of having
two sets of tags for the same request pool, to avoid having to copy
some of the request fields at dispatch and completion time. To do that,
we'd have to replace the driver tag map(s) with our own, and augment
that with tag map(s) on the side representing the device queue depth.
Queuing IO with the scheduler would allocate from the new map, and
dispatching would acquire the "real" tag. We would need to change
drivers to do this, or add an extra indirection table to map a real
tag to the scheduler tag. We would also need a 1:1 mapping between
scheduler and hardware tag pools, or additional info to track it.
Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I think the current approach
is cleaner.

I wasn't going to post v4 so soon, but I discovered a bug that led
to drastically decreased merging. Especially on rotating storage,
this release should be fast, and on par with the merging that we
get through the legacy schedulers.

I'm to modifying bfq.  You mentioned other missing pieces to come.  Do
you already have an idea of what they are, so that I am somehow
prepared to what won't work even if my changes are right?

I'm mostly talking about elevator ops hooks that aren't there in the new
framework, but exist in the old one. There should be no hidden
surprises, if that's what you are worried about.

On the ops side, the only ones I can think of are the activate and
deactivate, and those can be done in the dispatch_request hook for
activate, and put/requeue for deactivate.

You mean that there is no conceptual problem in moving the code of the
activate interface function into the dispatch function, and the code
of the deactivate into the put_request? (for a requeue it is a little
less clear to me, so one step at a time)  Or am I missing
something more complex?

Yes, what I mean is that there isn't a 1:1 mapping between the old ops
and the new ops. So you'll have to consider the cases.


-- 
Jens Axboe