Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-58904-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.48.161 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.48.161;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240208093136.178797-1-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>
 <20240208093136.178797-3-zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com> <ca00ff75-e98d-4652-9c52-94b2e876901e@kernel.dk>
 <CAGWkznH6Y8u7PsoHWid0uQ+ceRK_qzSn6=eWn4dvDhK+DzSXzg@mail.gmail.com> <da41bac4-015f-4df0-b8cc-6c8b2f468e12@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <da41bac4-015f-4df0-b8cc-6c8b2f468e12@kernel.dk>
From: Zhaoyang Huang <huangzhaoyang@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2024 08:28:55 +0800
Message-ID: <CAGWkznGnyPXM_DyyUxxZFoW=3K0B3Nh8sRZ8Lnsvm7WfES_fmA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] block: introducing a bias over deadline's fifo_time
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: "zhaoyang.huang" <zhaoyang.huang@unisoc.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, 
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@redhat.com>, 
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, 
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	steve.kang@unisoc.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 8:11=E2=80=AFAM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>
> On 2/8/24 5:02 PM, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 1:49?AM Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2/8/24 2:31 AM, zhaoyang.huang wrote:
> >>> diff --git a/block/mq-deadline.c b/block/mq-deadline.c
> >>> index f958e79277b8..43c08c3d6f18 100644
> >>> --- a/block/mq-deadline.c
> >>> +++ b/block/mq-deadline.c
> >>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
> >>>  #include <linux/compiler.h>
> >>>  #include <linux/rbtree.h>
> >>>  #include <linux/sbitmap.h>
> >>> +#include "../kernel/sched/sched.h"
> >>>
> >>>  #include <trace/events/block.h>
> >>>
> >>> @@ -802,6 +803,7 @@ static void dd_insert_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ct=
x *hctx, struct request *rq,
> >>>       u8 ioprio_class =3D IOPRIO_PRIO_CLASS(ioprio);
> >>>       struct dd_per_prio *per_prio;
> >>>       enum dd_prio prio;
> >>> +     int fifo_expire;
> >>>
> >>>       lockdep_assert_held(&dd->lock);
> >>>
> >>> @@ -840,7 +842,9 @@ static void dd_insert_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ct=
x *hctx, struct request *rq,
> >>>               /*
> >>>                * set expire time and add to fifo list
> >>>                */
> >>> -             rq->fifo_time =3D jiffies + dd->fifo_expire[data_dir];
> >>> +             fifo_expire =3D task_is_realtime(current) ? dd->fifo_ex=
pire[data_dir] :
> >>> +                     CFS_PROPORTION(current, dd->fifo_expire[data_di=
r]);
> >>> +             rq->fifo_time =3D jiffies + fifo_expire;
> >>>               insert_before =3D &per_prio->fifo_list[data_dir];
> >>>  #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED
> >>>               /*
> >>
> >> Hard pass on this blatant layering violation. Just like the priority
> >> changes, this utterly fails to understand how things are properly
> >> designed.
> > IMHO, I don't think this is a layering violation. bio_set_ioprio is
> > the one which introduces the scheduler thing into the block layer,
> > this commit just wants to do a little improvement based on that. This
> > commit helps CFS task save some IO time when preempted by RT heavily.
>
> Listen, both this and the previous content ioprio thing show a glaring
> misunderstanding of how to design these kinds of things. You have no
> grasp of what the different layers do, or how they interact. I'm not
> sure how to put this kindly, but it's really an awful idea to hardcore
> some CFS helper into the IO scheduler. The fact that you had to fiddle
> around with headers to make it work was the first warning sign, and the
> fact that you didn't stop at that point to consider how it could be
> properly done makes it even worse.
>
> You need to stop sending kernel patches until you understand basic
> software design. Neither of these patches are going anywhere until this
> happens. There's been plenty of feedback to telling you that, but you
> seem to just ignore it and plow on ahead. Stop.
Ok, thanks for pointing this out, I will follow your advice. But I
have to say that '[PATCHv9 1/1] block: introduce content activity
based ioprio' really solved layering violation things. I would like to
humbly ask for your kindly patient to have a look, as it is really
helpful.
>
> --
> Jens Axboe
>