lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Nov]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 02/20] blkio: Change CFQ to use CFS like queue time stamps
On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 09:30:34AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> writes:
>

Thanks for the review Jeff.

> > o Currently CFQ provides priority scaled time slices to processes. If a process
> > does not use the time slice, either because process did not have sufficient
> > IO to do or because think time of process is large and CFQ decided to disable
> > idling, then processes looses it time slice share.
> ^^^^^^
> loses
>

Will fix it.

> > o One possible way to handle this is implement CFS like time stamping of the
> > cfq queues and keep track of vtime. Next queue for execution will be selected
> > based on the one who got lowest vtime. This patch implemented time stamping
> > mechanism of cfq queues based on disk time used.
> >
> > o min_vdisktime represents the minimum vdisktime of the queue, either being
> ^^^^^
> > serviced or leftmost element on the serviec tree.
>
> queue or service tree? The latter seems to make more sense to me.

Yes, it should be service tree. Will fix it.

>
> > +static inline u64
> > +cfq_delta_fair(unsigned long delta, struct cfq_queue *cfqq)
> > +{
> > + const int base_slice = cfqq->cfqd->cfq_slice[cfq_cfqq_sync(cfqq)];
> > +
> > + return delta + (base_slice/CFQ_SLICE_SCALE * (cfqq->ioprio - 4));
> > +}
>
> cfq_scale_delta might be a better name.
>

cfq_scale_delta sounds good. Will use it in next version.

>
> > +static inline u64 max_vdisktime(u64 min_vdisktime, u64 vdisktime)
> > +{
> > + s64 delta = (s64)(vdisktime - min_vdisktime);
> > + if (delta > 0)
> > + min_vdisktime = vdisktime;
> > +
> > + return min_vdisktime;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static inline u64 min_vdisktime(u64 min_vdisktime, u64 vdisktime)
> > +{
> > + s64 delta = (s64)(vdisktime - min_vdisktime);
> > + if (delta < 0)
> > + min_vdisktime = vdisktime;
> > +
> > + return min_vdisktime;
> > +}
>
> Is there a reason you've reimplemented min and max?

I think you are referring to min_t and max_t. Will these macros take care
of wrapping too?

For example, if I used min_t(u64, A, B), then unsigned comparision will
not work right wrapping has just taken place for any of the A or B. So if
A=-1 and B=2, then min_t() would return B as minimum. This is not right
in our case.

If we do signed comparison (min_t(s64, A, B)), that also seems to be
broken in another case where a value of variable moves from 63bits to 64bits,
(A=0x7fffffffffffffff, B=0x8000000000000000). Above will return B as minimum but
in our scanario, vdisktime will progress from 0x7fffffffffffffff to
0x8000000000000000 and A should be returned as minimum (unsigned
comparison).

Hence I took these difnitions from CFS.

>
> > + /*
> > + * Maintain a cache of leftmost tree entries (it is frequently
> > + * used)
> > + */
>
> You make it sound like there is a cache of more than one entry. Please
> fix the comment.

Will fix it.

>
> > +static void cfqq_served(struct cfq_queue *cfqq, unsigned long served)
> > +{
> > + /*
> > + * We don't want to charge more than allocated slice otherwise this
> > + * queue can miss one dispatch round doubling max latencies. On the
> > + * other hand we don't want to charge less than allocated slice as
> > + * we stick to CFQ theme of queue loosing its share if it does not
> ^^^^^^^
> losing
>

Will fix it.

>
> > +/*
> > + * Handles three operations.
> > + * Addition of a new queue to service tree, when a new request comes in.
> > + * Resorting of an expiring queue (used after slice expired)
> > + * Requeuing a queue at the front (used during preemption).
> > + */
> > +static void cfq_service_tree_add(struct cfq_data *cfqd, struct cfq_queue *cfqq,
> > + bool add_front, unsigned long service)
>
> service? Can we come up with a better name that actually hints at what
> this is? service_time, maybe?

Ok, service_time sounds good. Will change it.

>
>
> Mostly this looks pretty good and is fairly easy to read.

Thanks
Vivek


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-11-04 17:41    [W:0.395 / U:1.336 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site