Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH 7/7] blk-iocost: Factor out the base vrate change into a separate function | From | Baolin Wang <> | Date | Wed, 25 Nov 2020 21:43:22 +0800 |
| |
> Hello, > > On Tue, Nov 24, 2020 at 11:33:36AM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote: >> @@ -2320,45 +2358,11 @@ static void ioc_timer_fn(struct timer_list *timer) >> ioc->busy_level = clamp(ioc->busy_level, -1000, 1000); >> >> if (ioc->busy_level > 0 || (ioc->busy_level < 0 && !nr_lagging)) { >> - u64 vrate = ioc->vtime_base_rate; >> - u64 vrate_min = ioc->vrate_min, vrate_max = ioc->vrate_max; > ... >> + trace_iocost_ioc_vrate_adj(ioc, ioc->vtime_base_rate, >> + missed_ppm, rq_wait_pct, >> nr_lagging, nr_shortages); >> - >> - ioc->vtime_base_rate = vrate; >> - ioc_refresh_margins(ioc); >> } else if (ioc->busy_level != prev_busy_level || nr_lagging) { >> trace_iocost_ioc_vrate_adj(ioc, atomic64_read(&ioc->vtime_rate), >> missed_ppm, rq_wait_pct, nr_lagging, > > I think it'd be better to factor out the surrounding if/else block together
OK.
> (as early exit if blocks). Also, how about ioc_adjust_base_vrate()?
Sure, will rename it in next version. Thanks.
| |