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;
IronPort-SDR: 1A5XNCU5Gwi+6rjHvSzG0S93ixefuR4Y797x9ksocYpQ+EGJADjn8m/cpvHeyj1jiQ5/DZCeXm
 pBFwwbkXfApVTm+4OZai1t0gECkh9bbFvCoHdIL5uehkBz+8bYMnfrKGXbCkZChdxI3ffgHipf
 Nbvvw3mWjvB5XnkIEJ8UkABWASRHsNCT7JBiKst6ek0rJnI5cFZdeVHoeDmLZ+XxyPhUJ3totc
 3KlVGT7CXgquMtzc1R2Pb0kLjWfDDuYKQuOpcYYQyWRN1MLMyw84lRxEeN2Zrt74cjLXD+qGRy
 oy0=
IronPort-SDR: WDk3tcx3J7Fwq/nyUZvJdC4wgX1ppnUpf3mdTUuibelaurt4YzkGZiztJTVYnuGAhxOd12f39h
 bnZ9XxX0DxdVEUknpxzof1TWIxuVmR3yQv0kyeJ+P5XzMgKIOtJdjXkdrz8813UWLuzxfMoQxu
 chf8PKAGXpfFxfg0GvpW4DaiOLQXgc08k052jOC/JtvNN+4gMWyjBn4xkcJBbLcPquUa+A0o/R
 mISpRLrkPnk2S2o7jL2JfiLMlPq5imJ0DhWrrBbml6pQ00k89lMsGZxbH8opD1FF0DHDJzocn8
 BPY=
WDCIronportException: Internal
Message-ID: <d27ca14b-e228-49b7-28a8-00ea67e8ea06@opensource.wdc.com>
Date:   Tue, 6 Dec 2022 17:29:41 +0900
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.5.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH V6 6/8] block, bfq: retrieve independent access ranges
 from request queue
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
Cc:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
        linux-block <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, arie.vanderhoeven@seagate.com,
        rory.c.chen@seagate.com, Federico Gavioli <f.gavioli97@gmail.com>
References: <20221103162623.10286-1-paolo.valente@linaro.org>
 <20221103162623.10286-7-paolo.valente@linaro.org>
 <5d062001-2fff-35e5-d951-a61b510727d9@opensource.wdc.com>
 <4C45BCC6-D9AB-4C70-92E2-1B54AB4A2090@linaro.org>
From:   Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>
Organization: Western Digital Research
In-Reply-To: <4C45BCC6-D9AB-4C70-92E2-1B54AB4A2090@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 12/6/22 17:06, Paolo Valente wrote:
> 
> 
>> Il giorno 21 nov 2022, alle ore 02:01, Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com> ha scritto:
>>
> 
> ...
> 
>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> static bool bfq_bio_merge(struct request_queue *q, struct bio *bio,
>>> @@ -7144,6 +7159,8 @@ static int bfq_init_queue(struct request_queue *q, struct elevator_type *e)
>>> {
>>> 	struct bfq_data *bfqd;
>>> 	struct elevator_queue *eq;
>>> +	unsigned int i;
>>> +	struct blk_independent_access_ranges *ia_ranges = q->disk->ia_ranges;
>>>
>>> 	eq = elevator_alloc(q, e);
>>> 	if (!eq)
>>> @@ -7187,10 +7204,31 @@ static int bfq_init_queue(struct request_queue *q, struct elevator_type *e)
>>> 	bfqd->queue = q;
>>>
>>> 	/*
>>> -	 * Multi-actuator support not complete yet, default to single
>>> -	 * actuator for the moment.
>>> +	 * If the disk supports multiple actuators, we copy the independent
>>> +	 * access ranges from the request queue structure.
>>> 	 */
>>> -	bfqd->num_actuators = 1;
>>> +	spin_lock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
>>> +	if (ia_ranges) {
>>> +		/*
>>> +		 * Check if the disk ia_ranges size exceeds the current bfq
>>> +		 * actuator limit.
>>> +		 */
>>> +		if (ia_ranges->nr_ia_ranges > BFQ_MAX_ACTUATORS) {
>>> +			pr_crit("nr_ia_ranges higher than act limit: iars=%d, max=%d.\n",
>>> +				ia_ranges->nr_ia_ranges, BFQ_MAX_ACTUATORS);
>>> +			pr_crit("Falling back to single actuator mode.\n");
>>> +			bfqd->num_actuators = 0;
>>> +		} else {
>>> +			bfqd->num_actuators = ia_ranges->nr_ia_ranges;
>>> +
>>> +			for (i = 0; i < bfqd->num_actuators; i++)
>>> +				bfqd->ia_ranges[i] = ia_ranges->ia_range[i];
>>> +		}
>>> +	} else {
>>> +		bfqd->num_actuators = 0;
>>
>> That is very weird. The default should be 1 actuator.
>> ia_ranges->nr_ia_ranges is 0 when the disk does not provide any range
>> information, meaning it is a regular disk with a single actuator.
> 
> Actually, IIUC this assignment to 0 seems to be done exactly when you
> say that it should be done, i.e., when the disk does not provide any
> range information (ia_ranges is NULL). Am I missing something else?

No ranges reported means no extra actuators, so a single actuator an
single LBA range for the entire device. In that case, bfq should process
all IOs using bfqd->ia_ranges[0]. The get range function will always
return that range. That makes the code clean and avoids different path for
nr_ranges == 1 and nr_ranges > 1. No ?

> 
> Once again, all other suggestions applied. I'm about to submit a V7.
> 
> Thanks,
> Paolo
> 

-- 
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research