Thread (19 messages) 19 messages, 2 authors, 2021-09-15

Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] block, bfq: do not idle if only one cgroup is activated

From: Paolo Valente <hidden>
Date: 2021-08-26 17:00:55
Also in: lkml

quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Il giorno 6 ago 2021, alle ore 04:08, Yu Kuai [off-list ref] ha scritto:

If only one group is activated, there is no need to guarantee the same
share of the throughput of queues in the same group.

If CONFIG_BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED is enabled, there is no need to check
'varied_queue_weights' and 'multiple_classes_busy':
1) num_groups_with_pending_reqs = 0, idle is not needed
2) num_groups_with_pending_reqs = 1
  - if root group have any pending requests, idle is needed
  - if root group is idle, idle is not needed
3) num_groups_with_pending_reqs > 1, idle is needed

Test procedure:
run "fio -numjobs=1 -ioengine=psync -bs=4k -direct=1 -rw=randread..."
multiple times in the same cgroup(not root).

Test result: total bandwidth(Mib/s)
| total jobs | before this patch | after this patch      |
| ---------- | ----------------- | --------------------- |
| 1          | 33.8              | 33.8                  |
| 2          | 33.8              | 65.4 (32.7 each job)  |
| 4          | 33.8              | 106.8 (26.7 each job) |
| 8          | 33.8              | 126.4 (15.8 each job) |

By the way, if I test with "fio -numjobs=1/2/4/8 ...", test result is
the same with or without this patch.

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <redacted>
---
block/bfq-iosched.c | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
index 7c6b412f9a9c..a780205a1be4 100644
--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
@@ -709,7 +709,9 @@ bfq_pos_tree_add_move(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq)
 * much easier to maintain the needed state:
 * 1) all active queues have the same weight,
 * 2) all active queues belong to the same I/O-priority class,
- * 3) there are no active groups.
+ * 3) there are one active group at most(incluing root_group).
there are -> there is
incluing -> including
add a space before left parenthesis
+ * If the last condition is false, there is no need to guarantee the,
remove comma
+ * same share of the throughput of queues in the same group.
Actually, I would not add this extra comment on the last condition at all.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
 * In particular, the last condition is always true if hierarchical
 * support or the cgroups interface are not enabled, thus no state
 * needs to be maintained in this case.
@@ -717,7 +719,26 @@ bfq_pos_tree_add_move(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq)
static bool bfq_asymmetric_scenario(struct bfq_data *bfqd,
				   struct bfq_queue *bfqq)
{
-	bool smallest_weight = bfqq &&
+	bool smallest_weight;
+	bool varied_queue_weights;
+	bool multiple_classes_busy;
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED
+	if (bfqd->num_groups_with_pending_reqs > 1)
+		return true;
+
+	if (bfqd->num_groups_with_pending_reqs &&
+	    bfqd->num_queues_with_pending_reqs_in_root)
+		return true;
+
+	/*
+	 * Reach here means only one group(incluing root group) has pending
+	 * requests, thus it's safe to return.
+	 */
+	return false;
+#endif
+
+	smallest_weight = bfqq &&
		bfqq->weight_counter &&
		bfqq->weight_counter ==
		container_of(
@@ -729,21 +750,17 @@ static bool bfq_asymmetric_scenario(struct bfq_data *bfqd,
	 * For queue weights to differ, queue_weights_tree must contain
	 * at least two nodes.
	 */
-	bool varied_queue_weights = !smallest_weight &&
+	varied_queue_weights = !smallest_weight &&
		!RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&bfqd->queue_weights_tree.rb_root) &&
		(bfqd->queue_weights_tree.rb_root.rb_node->rb_left ||
		 bfqd->queue_weights_tree.rb_root.rb_node->rb_right);

-	bool multiple_classes_busy =
+	multiple_classes_busy =
		(bfqd->busy_queues[0] && bfqd->busy_queues[1]) ||
		(bfqd->busy_queues[0] && bfqd->busy_queues[2]) ||
		(bfqd->busy_queues[1] && bfqd->busy_queues[2]);

-	return varied_queue_weights || multiple_classes_busy
-#ifdef CONFIG_BFQ_GROUP_IOSCHED
-	       || bfqd->num_groups_with_pending_reqs > 0
Why do you make these extensive changes, while you can leave all the
function unchanged and just modify the above condition to something
like

|| bfqd->num_groups_with_pending_reqs > 1
|| (bfqd->num_groups_with_pending_reqs && bfqd->num_queues_with_pending_reqs_in_root)

In addition, I still wonder whether you can simply add also the root
group to bfqd->num_groups_with_pending_reqs (when the root group is
active).  This would make the design much cleaner.

Thanks,
Paolo
-#endif
-		;
+	return varied_queue_weights || multiple_classes_busy;
}

/*
-- 
2.31.1
  
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help