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