lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: blk_queue_congestion_threshold()
On Thu, Nov 04 2004, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Chuck Ebbert wrote:
> > Looking at this function in ll_rw_blk.c:
> >
> >
> >static void blk_queue_congestion_threshold(struct request_queue *q)
> >{
> > int nr;
> >
> > nr = q->nr_requests - (q->nr_requests / 8) + 1;
> > if (nr > q->nr_requests)
> > nr = q->nr_requests;
> > q->nr_congestion_on = nr;
> >
> > nr = q->nr_requests - (q->nr_requests / 8) - 1;
> > if (nr < 1)
> > nr = 1;
> > q->nr_congestion_off = nr;
> >}
> >
> >
> > Why are the "on" and "off" thresholds the same, i.e. shouldn't there be
> > some
>
> They aren't the same, there is some hysteresis.
>
> >hysteresis? Con Kolivas posted a patch that changed the "off" threshold to
> >"nr_requests - nr_requests/8 - nr_requests/16" and it was said to be
> >better,
> >but it never made it into mainline (it also changed get_request_wait() and
> >that
> >was never merged either):
> >
>
> Patch was from Arjan. IIRC everyone agreed it looked good, and from
> all the feedback I have seen it has worked well. Jens just may not
> have had time to get it merged, or forgotten about it.
>
> It can probably at least go to -mm for now.

It should just go to Linus, imho. It just got lost, I'll send it out
today.

> >--- patches/linux-2.6.9-rc4-ck1/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c 2004-10-12
> >12:25:09.798003278 +0200
> >+++ linux-2.6.9-rc4-ck1/drivers/block/ll_rw_blk.c 2004-10-12
> >12:25:42.959479479 +0200
> >@@ -100,7 +100,7 @@
> > nr = q->nr_requests;
> > q->nr_congestion_on = nr;
> >
> >- nr = q->nr_requests - (q->nr_requests / 8) - 1;
> >+ nr = q->nr_requests - (q->nr_requests / 8) - (q->nr_requests/16)-
> >1;
> > if (nr < 1)
> > nr = 1;
> > q->nr_congestion_off = nr;
>
> The stuff below this hunk is a different thing altogether, and should
> not be merged.
>
> >@@ -1758,8 +1758,10 @@
> > {
> > DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
> > struct request *rq;
> >+ struct io_context *ioc;
> >
> > generic_unplug_device(q);
> >+ ioc = get_io_context(GFP_NOIO);
> > do {
> > struct request_list *rl = &q->rq;
> >
> >@@ -1769,7 +1771,6 @@
> > rq = get_request(q, rw, GFP_NOIO);
> >
> > if (!rq) {
> >- struct io_context *ioc;
> >
> > io_schedule();
> >
> >@@ -1779,12 +1780,11 @@
> > * up to a big batch of them for a small period
> > time.
> > * See ioc_batching, ioc_set_batching
> > */
> >- ioc = get_io_context(GFP_NOIO);
> > ioc_set_batching(q, ioc);
> >- put_io_context(ioc);
> > }
> > finish_wait(&rl->wait[rw], &wait);
> > } while (!rq);
> >+ put_io_context(ioc);
> >
> > return rq;
> > }

Yes this isn't valid, as discussed several times on linux-kernel.

--
Jens Axboe

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.056 / U:0.804 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site