On 19.03.2018 09:03, Paolo Valente wrote:

quoted

Il giorno 05 mar 2018, alle ore 04:48, Konstantin Khlebnikov [off-list ref] ha scritto:

Rate should never overflow or become zero because it is used as divider.
This patch accumulates it with saturation.

Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <redacted>
---
block/bfq-iosched.c |    8 +++++---
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
index aeca22d91101..a236c8d541b5 100644
--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c

@@ -2546,7 +2546,8 @@ static void bfq_reset_rate_computation(struct bfq_data *bfqd,

static void bfq_update_rate_reset(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct request *rq)
{
-	u32 rate, weight, divisor;
+	u32 weight, divisor;
+	u64 rate;

	/*
	 * For the convergence property to hold (see comments on

@@ -2634,9 +2635,10 @@ static void bfq_update_rate_reset(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct request *rq)

	 */
	bfqd->peak_rate *= divisor-1;
	bfqd->peak_rate /= divisor;
-	rate /= divisor; /* smoothing constant alpha = 1/divisor */
+	do_div(rate, divisor);	/* smoothing constant alpha = 1/divisor */

-	bfqd->peak_rate += rate;
+	/* rate should never overlow or become zero */

It is bfqd->peak_rate that is used as a divider, and bfqd->peak_rate doesn't risk to be zero even if the variable 'rate' is zero here.

So I guess the reason why you consider the possibility that bfqd->peak_rate becomes zero is because of an overflow when summing 'rate'. But, according to my calculations, this should be impossible with devices with sensible speeds.

These are the reasons why I decided I could make it with a 32-bit variable, without any additional clamping. Did I make any mistake in my evaluation?

According to Murphy's law this is inevitable..

I've seen couple division by zero crashes in bfq_wr_duration.
Unfortunately logs weren't recorded.

Anyway, even if I made some mistake about the maximum possible value of the device rate, and the latter may be too high for bfqd->peak_rate to contain it, then I guess the right solution would not be to clamp the actual rate to U32_MAX, but to move bfqd->peak_rate to 64 bits. Or am I missing something else?

 >>> +	bfqd->peak_rate = clamp_t(u64, rate + bfqd->peak_rate, 1, U32_MAX);

32-bit should be enough and better for division.
My patch makes sure it never overflows/underflows.
That's cheaper than full 64-bit/64-bit division.
Anyway 64-bit speed could overflow too. =)

quoted

	update_thr_responsiveness_params(bfqd);

reset_computation: