lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH -next 2/2] block, bfq: make bfq_has_work() more accurate
From
Date
On 2022/05/11 22:08, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 10-05-22 21:16:29, Yu Kuai wrote:
>> bfq_has_work() is using busy_queues currently, which is not accurate
>> because bfq_queue is busy doesn't represent that it has requests. Since
>> bfqd aready has a counter 'queued' to record how many requests are in
>> bfq, use it instead of busy_queues.
>>
>> Noted that bfq_has_work() can be called with 'bfqd->lock' held, thus the
>> lock can't be held in bfq_has_work() to protect 'bfqd->queued'.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
>
> So did you find this causing any real problem? Because bfq queue is
> accounted among busy queues once bfq_add_bfqq_busy() is called. And that
> happens once a new request is inserted into the queue so it should be very
> similar to bfqd->queued.
>
> Honza

Hi,

The related problem is described here:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220510112302.1215092-1-yukuai3@huawei.com/

The root cause of the panic is a linux-block problem, however, it can
be bypassed if bfq_has_work() is accurate. On the other hand,
unnecessary run_work will be triggered if bfqq stays busy:

__blk_mq_run_hw_queue
__blk_mq_sched_dispatch_requests
__blk_mq_do_dispatch_sched
if (!bfq_has_work())
break;
blk_mq_delay_run_hw_queues -> run again after 3ms

Thanks,
Kuai
>
>> ---
>> block/bfq-iosched.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
>> index 61750696e87f..1d2f8110c26b 100644
>> --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
>> +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
>> @@ -5063,11 +5063,11 @@ static bool bfq_has_work(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
>> struct bfq_data *bfqd = hctx->queue->elevator->elevator_data;
>>
>> /*
>> - * Avoiding lock: a race on bfqd->busy_queues should cause at
>> + * Avoiding lock: a race on bfqd->queued should cause at
>> * most a call to dispatch for nothing
>> */
>> return !list_empty_careful(&bfqd->dispatch) ||
>> - bfq_tot_busy_queues(bfqd) > 0;
>> + READ_ONCE(bfqd->queued);
>> }
>>
>> static struct request *__bfq_dispatch_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
>> --
>> 2.31.1
>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-12 03:31    [W:0.088 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site