Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 17 Aug 2022 07:52:45 -1000 | From | Tejun Heo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v7 4/9] blk-throttle: fix io hung due to configuration updates |
| |
On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 09:30:30AM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote: > > Would it be easier if the fields were signed? It's fragile and odd to > > explain "these are unsigned but if they underflow they behave just like > > signed when added" when they can just be signed. Also, I have a hard time > > understand what "preempt" means above. > > I think preempt shound never happen based on current FIFO > implementation, perhaps
Can you elaborate what "preempt" is?
> > > + if (bps_limit != U64_MAX) > > > + tg->bytes_skipped[rw] += > > > + calculate_bytes_allowed(bps_limit, jiffy_elapsed) - > > > + tg->bytes_disp[rw]; > > > + if (iops_limit != UINT_MAX) > > > + tg->io_skipped[rw] += > > > + calculate_io_allowed(iops_limit, jiffy_elapsed) - > > > + tg->io_disp[rw]; > > > > So, this is calculating the budgets to carry over. Can we name them > > accordingly? I don't know what "skipped" means. > > Yeah, thanks for you advice, art of naming is a little hard for me... > How do you think about these name: extended_bytes/io_budget?
How about carryover_{ios|bytes}?
Thanks.
-- tejun
| |