Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2 2/5] block, bfq: add fake weight_counter for
 weight-raised queue
From:   "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>
To:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC:     <paolo.valente@linaro.org>, <axboe@kernel.dk>, <tj@kernel.org>,
        <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>, <cgroups@vger.kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
References: <20220416093753.3054696-1-yukuai3@huawei.com>
 <20220416093753.3054696-3-yukuai3@huawei.com>
 <20220425094856.qgkhba2klguduxot@quack3.lan>
 <a27b8c79-867f-9253-84db-1d39c964b3ed@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <4048cc0c-adc8-8097-4a40-762137c4c282@huawei.com>
Date:   Mon, 25 Apr 2022 21:55:46 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a27b8c79-867f-9253-84db-1d39c964b3ed@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gbk"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

?? 2022/04/25 21:34, yukuai (C) д??:
> ?? 2022/04/25 17:48, Jan Kara д??:
>> On Sat 16-04-22 17:37:50, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>> Weight-raised queue is not inserted to weights_tree, which makes it
>>> impossible to track how many queues have pending requests through
>>> weights_tree insertion and removel. This patch add fake weight_counter
>>> for weight-raised queue to do that.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
>>
>> This is a bit hacky. I was looking into a better place where to hook to
>> count entities in a bfq_group with requests and I think 
>> bfq_add_bfqq_busy()
>> and bfq_del_bfqq_busy() are ideal for this. It also makes better sense
>> conceptually than hooking into weights tree handling.
>>
> Hi,
> 
> bfq_del_bfqq_busy() will be called when all the reqs in the bfqq are
> dispatched, however there might still some reqs are't completed yet.
> 
> Here what we want to track is how many bfqqs have pending reqs,
> specifically if the bfqq have reqs are't complted.
> 
> Thus I think bfq_del_bfqq_busy() is not the right place to do that.

BTW, there is a counter 'dispatched' in bfqq, how about we rename it
to 'inflight', and inc when adding req to bfqq, dec the same as
'dispatched' ?

This way we can count bfqq when adding 'inflight' from 0 to 1, and
stop when decreasing 'inflight' from 1 to 0.