Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751855AbdF0GJi (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2017 02:09:38 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f169.google.com ([209.85.128.169]:36084 "EHLO mail-wr0-f169.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751655AbdF0GJa (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Jun 2017 02:09:30 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\)) Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX V2] block, bfq: update wr_busy_queues if needed on a queue split From: Paolo Valente In-Reply-To: <20170619114316.2587-1-paolo.valente@linaro.org> Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2017 08:09:34 +0200 Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ulf.hansson@linaro.org, broonie@kernel.org Message-Id: <8520D3AF-C161-439F-A7E8-A6B7202DA2D9@linaro.org> References: <20170619114316.2587-1-paolo.valente@linaro.org> To: Jens Axboe X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by mail.home.local id v5R69fu4014812 Content-Length: 4428 Lines: 118 > Il giorno 19 giu 2017, alle ore 13:43, Paolo Valente ha scritto: > > This commit fixes a bug triggered by a non-trivial sequence of > events. These events are briefly described in the next two > paragraphs. The impatiens, or those who are familiar with queue > merging and splitting, can jump directly to the last paragraph. > > On each I/O-request arrival for a shared bfq_queue, i.e., for a > bfq_queue that is the result of the merge of two or more bfq_queues, > BFQ checks whether the shared bfq_queue has become seeky (i.e., if too > many random I/O requests have arrived for the bfq_queue; if the device > is non rotational, then random requests must be also small for the > bfq_queue to be tagged as seeky). If the shared bfq_queue is actually > detected as seeky, then a split occurs: the bfq I/O context of the > process that has issued the request is redirected from the shared > bfq_queue to a new non-shared bfq_queue. As a degenerate case, if the > shared bfq_queue actually happens to be shared only by one process > (because of previous splits), then no new bfq_queue is created: the > state of the shared bfq_queue is just changed from shared to non > shared. > > Regardless of whether a brand new non-shared bfq_queue is created, or > the pre-existing shared bfq_queue is just turned into a non-shared > bfq_queue, several parameters of the non-shared bfq_queue are set > (restored) to the original values they had when the bfq_queue > associated with the bfq I/O context of the process (that has just > issued an I/O request) was merged with the shared bfq_queue. One of > these parameters is the weight-raising state. > > If, on the split of a shared bfq_queue, > 1) a pre-existing shared bfq_queue is turned into a non-shared > bfq_queue; > 2) the previously shared bfq_queue happens to be busy; > 3) the weight-raising state of the previously shared bfq_queue happens > to change; > the number of weight-raised busy queues changes. The field > wr_busy_queues must then be updated accordingly, but such an update > was missing. This commit adds the missing update. > Hi Jens, any idea of the possible fate of this fix? Thanks, Paolo > Reported-by: Luca Miccio > Signed-off-by: Paolo Valente > --- > block/bfq-iosched.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c > index ed93da2..bbeaf52 100644 > --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c > +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c > @@ -725,8 +725,12 @@ static void bfq_updated_next_req(struct bfq_data *bfqd, > } > > static void > -bfq_bfqq_resume_state(struct bfq_queue *bfqq, struct bfq_io_cq *bic) > +bfq_bfqq_resume_state(struct bfq_queue *bfqq, struct bfq_data *bfqd, > + struct bfq_io_cq *bic, bool bfq_already_existing) > { > + unsigned int old_wr_coeff = bfqq->wr_coeff; > + bool busy = bfq_already_existing && bfq_bfqq_busy(bfqq); > + > if (bic->saved_idle_window) > bfq_mark_bfqq_idle_window(bfqq); > else > @@ -754,6 +758,14 @@ bfq_bfqq_resume_state(struct bfq_queue *bfqq, struct bfq_io_cq *bic) > > /* make sure weight will be updated, however we got here */ > bfqq->entity.prio_changed = 1; > + > + if (likely(!busy)) > + return; > + > + if (old_wr_coeff == 1 && bfqq->wr_coeff > 1) > + bfqd->wr_busy_queues++; > + else if (old_wr_coeff > 1 && bfqq->wr_coeff == 1) > + bfqd->wr_busy_queues--; > } > > static int bfqq_process_refs(struct bfq_queue *bfqq) > @@ -4402,7 +4414,7 @@ static int bfq_get_rq_private(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq, > const int is_sync = rq_is_sync(rq); > struct bfq_queue *bfqq; > bool new_queue = false; > - bool split = false; > + bool bfqq_already_existing = false, split = false; > > spin_lock_irq(&bfqd->lock); > > @@ -4432,6 +4444,8 @@ static int bfq_get_rq_private(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq, > bfqq = bfq_get_bfqq_handle_split(bfqd, bic, bio, > true, is_sync, > NULL); > + else > + bfqq_already_existing = true; > } > } > > @@ -4457,7 +4471,8 @@ static int bfq_get_rq_private(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq, > * queue: restore the idle window and the > * possible weight raising period. > */ > - bfq_bfqq_resume_state(bfqq, bic); > + bfq_bfqq_resume_state(bfqq, bfqd, bic, > + bfqq_already_existing); > } > } > > -- > 2.10.0 >