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;
Date:   Mon, 25 Apr 2022 18:16:50 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, 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
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2 2/5] block, bfq: add fake weight_counter for
 weight-raised queue
Message-ID: <20220425161650.xzyijgkb5yzviea3@quack3.lan>
References: <20220416093753.3054696-1-yukuai3@huawei.com>
 <20220416093753.3054696-3-yukuai3@huawei.com>
 <20220425094856.qgkhba2klguduxot@quack3.lan>
 <a27b8c79-867f-9253-84db-1d39c964b3ed@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <a27b8c79-867f-9253-84db-1d39c964b3ed@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hello!

On Mon 25-04-22 21:34:16, yukuai (C) wrote:
> 在 2022/04/25 17:48, Jan Kara 写道:
> > 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.
> 
> 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.

Yes, I'm aware there will be a difference. But note that bfqq can stay busy
with only dispatched requests because the logic in __bfq_bfqq_expire() will
not call bfq_del_bfqq_busy() if idling is needed for service guarantees. So
I think using bfq_add/del_bfqq_busy() would work OK. 

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR