lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] block, bfq: keep peak_rate estimation within range 1..2^32-1
From
Date
On 19.03.2018 09:03, Paolo Valente wrote:
>
>
>> Il giorno 05 mar 2018, alle ore 04:48, Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru> ha scritto:
>>
>> Rate should never overflow or become zero because it is used as divider.
>> This patch accumulates it with saturation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>
>> ---
>> block/bfq-iosched.c | 8 +++++---
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
>> index aeca22d91101..a236c8d541b5 100644
>> --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
>> +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
>> @@ -2546,7 +2546,8 @@ static void bfq_reset_rate_computation(struct bfq_data *bfqd,
>>
>> static void bfq_update_rate_reset(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct request *rq)
>> {
>> - u32 rate, weight, divisor;
>> + u32 weight, divisor;
>> + u64 rate;
>>
>> /*
>> * For the convergence property to hold (see comments on
>> @@ -2634,9 +2635,10 @@ static void bfq_update_rate_reset(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct request *rq)
>> */
>> bfqd->peak_rate *= divisor-1;
>> bfqd->peak_rate /= divisor;
>> - rate /= divisor; /* smoothing constant alpha = 1/divisor */
>> + do_div(rate, divisor); /* smoothing constant alpha = 1/divisor */
>>
>> - bfqd->peak_rate += rate;
>> + /* rate should never overlow or become zero */
>
> It is bfqd->peak_rate that is used as a divider, and bfqd->peak_rate doesn't risk to be zero even if the variable 'rate' is zero here.
>
> So I guess the reason why you consider the possibility that bfqd->peak_rate becomes zero is because of an overflow when summing 'rate'. But, according to my calculations, this should be impossible with devices with sensible speeds.
>
> These are the reasons why I decided I could make it with a 32-bit variable, without any additional clamping. Did I make any mistake in my evaluation?

According to Murphy's law this is inevitable..

I've seen couple division by zero crashes in bfq_wr_duration.
Unfortunately logs weren't recorded.

>
> Anyway, even if I made some mistake about the maximum possible value of the device rate, and the latter may be too high for bfqd->peak_rate to contain it, then I guess the right solution would not be to clamp the actual rate to U32_MAX, but to move bfqd->peak_rate to 64 bits. Or am I missing something else?
>>> + bfqd->peak_rate = clamp_t(u64, rate + bfqd->peak_rate, 1, U32_MAX);

32-bit should be enough and better for division.
My patch makes sure it never overflows/underflows.
That's cheaper than full 64-bit/64-bit division.
Anyway 64-bit speed could overflow too. =)


>> update_thr_responsiveness_params(bfqd);
>>
>> reset_computation:
>>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-19 07:28    [W:0.050 / U:0.296 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site