Re: [PATCHv3 1/1] block: introduce content activity based ioprio
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Date: 2024-01-26 08:55:44
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, lkml
On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 03:59:48PM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
loop more mm and fs guys for more comments
I agree with everything Damien said. But also ...
quoted
+bool BIO_ADD_FOLIO(struct bio *bio, struct folio *folio, size_t len, + size_t off)
You don't add any users of these functions. It's hard to assess whether this is the right API when there are no example users.
quoted
+ activity += (bio->bi_vcnt + 1 <= IOPRIO_NR_ACTIVITY && + PageWorkingset(&folio->page)) ? 1 : 0;
folio_test_workingset().
quoted
+ return bio_add_page(bio, &folio->page, len, off) > 0;
bio_add_folio().
quoted
+int BIO_ADD_PAGE(struct bio *bio, struct page *page, + unsigned int len, unsigned int offset) +{ + int class, level, hint, activity; + + if (bio_add_page(bio, page, len, offset) > 0) { + class = IOPRIO_PRIO_CLASS(bio->bi_ioprio); + level = IOPRIO_PRIO_LEVEL(bio->bi_ioprio); + hint = IOPRIO_PRIO_HINT(bio->bi_ioprio); + activity = IOPRIO_PRIO_ACTIVITY(bio->bi_ioprio); + activity += (bio->bi_vcnt <= IOPRIO_NR_ACTIVITY && PageWorkingset(page)) ? 1 : 0; + bio->bi_ioprio = IOPRIO_PRIO_VALUE_ACTIVITY(class, level, hint, activity); + }
why are BIO_ADD_PAGE and BIO_ADD_FOLIO so very different from each other?
quoted
static __always_inline __u16 ioprio_value(int prioclass, int priolevel, - int priohint) + int priohint)
why did you change this whitespace?
quoted
{ if (IOPRIO_BAD_VALUE(prioclass, IOPRIO_NR_CLASSES) || - IOPRIO_BAD_VALUE(priolevel, IOPRIO_NR_LEVELS) || - IOPRIO_BAD_VALUE(priohint, IOPRIO_NR_HINTS)) + IOPRIO_BAD_VALUE(priolevel, IOPRIO_NR_LEVELS) || + IOPRIO_BAD_VALUE(priohint, IOPRIO_NR_HINTS))
ditto
quoted
return IOPRIO_CLASS_INVALID << IOPRIO_CLASS_SHIFT; return (prioclass << IOPRIO_CLASS_SHIFT) | (priohint << IOPRIO_HINT_SHIFT) | priolevel; } -
more gratuitous whitespace change