Il giorno 28 giu 2017, alle ore 14:42, Jens Axboe [off-list ref] ha =

scritto:

=20
On 06/27/2017 11:39 PM, Paolo Valente wrote:

quoted

=20

quoted

Il giorno 27 giu 2017, alle ore 20:29, Jens Axboe [off-list ref] =

ha scritto:

quoted

quoted

=20
On 06/27/2017 12:27 PM, Paolo Valente wrote:

quoted

=20

quoted

Il giorno 27 giu 2017, alle ore 16:41, Jens Axboe =

[off-list ref] ha scritto:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

=20
On 06/27/2017 12:09 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:

quoted

=20

quoted

Il giorno 19 giu 2017, alle ore 13:43, Paolo Valente =

[off-list ref] ha scritto:

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

=20
This commit fixes a bug triggered by a non-trivial sequence of
events. These events are briefly described in the next two
paragraphs. The impatiens, or those who are familiar with queue
merging and splitting, can jump directly to the last paragraph.
=20
On each I/O-request arrival for a shared bfq_queue, i.e., for a
bfq_queue that is the result of the merge of two or more =

bfq_queues,

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

BFQ checks whether the shared bfq_queue has become seeky (i.e., =

if too

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

many random I/O requests have arrived for the bfq_queue; if the =

device

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

is non rotational, then random requests must be also small for =

the

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

bfq_queue to be tagged as seeky). If the shared bfq_queue is =

actually

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

detected as seeky, then a split occurs: the bfq I/O context of =

the

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

process that has issued the request is redirected from the =

shared

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

bfq_queue to a new non-shared bfq_queue. As a degenerate case, =

if the

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

shared bfq_queue actually happens to be shared only by one =

process

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

(because of previous splits), then no new bfq_queue is created: =

the

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

state of the shared bfq_queue is just changed from shared to non
shared.
=20
Regardless of whether a brand new non-shared bfq_queue is =

created, or

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

the pre-existing shared bfq_queue is just turned into a =

non-shared

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

bfq_queue, several parameters of the non-shared bfq_queue are =

set

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

(restored) to the original values they had when the bfq_queue
associated with the bfq I/O context of the process (that has =

just

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

issued an I/O request) was merged with the shared bfq_queue. One =

of

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

these parameters is the weight-raising state.
=20
If, on the split of a shared bfq_queue,
1) a pre-existing shared bfq_queue is turned into a non-shared
bfq_queue;
2) the previously shared bfq_queue happens to be busy;
3) the weight-raising state of the previously shared bfq_queue =

happens

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

to change;
the number of weight-raised busy queues changes. The field
wr_busy_queues must then be updated accordingly, but such an =

update

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

quoted

was missing. This commit adds the missing update.
=20

=20
Hi Jens,
any idea of the possible fate of this fix?

=20
I sort of missed this one. It looks trivial enough for 4.12, or we
can defer until 4.13. What do you think?
=20

=20
It should actually be something trivial, and hopefully correct,
because a further throughput improvement (for BFQ), which depends =

on

quoted

quoted

quoted

this fix, is now working properly, and we didn't see any regression =

so

quoted

quoted

quoted

far.  In addition, since this improvement is virtually ready for
submission, further steps may be probably easier if this fix gets =

in

quoted

quoted

quoted

sooner (whatever the luck of the improvement will be).

=20
OK, let's queue it up for 4.13 then.
=20

=20
My arguments was in favor of 4.12 actually.  Maybe you did mean 4.12
here?

=20
You were talking about further improvements and new development on top
of this, so I assumed you meant 4.13. However, further development is
not the main criteria or concern for whether this fix should go into
4.12 or not.

Ok, thanks for your explanation and patience.

The main concern is if this fixes something that is crucial
to have in 4.12. It's late in the cycle, I'd rather not push anything
that isn't a regression fix at this point.
=20

Hard to assess precisely how crucial this is.  Certainly it fixes a
regression.  The practical, negative effects of this regression are
systematic when one tries to add the throughput improvement I
mentioned: the improvement almost never works.  If BFQ is used as it
is, then negative effects on throughput are less likely to happen.

I hope that this piece of information is somehow useful for your
decision.

Thanks,
Paolo

--=20
Jens Axboe