diff options
author | Angelo Ruocco <angeloruocco90@gmail.com> | 2017-12-20 14:38:34 +0300 |
---|---|---|
committer | Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> | 2018-01-05 19:26:11 +0300 |
commit | 4403e4e467c365b4189e3e3d3ad35cf67b8c36ed (patch) | |
tree | 6bc388cb660f4673aacbbcc705030c589c4748e5 /block | |
parent | 7b8fa3b900a087bc03b11329a92398fde563ba37 (diff) | |
download | linux-4403e4e467c365b4189e3e3d3ad35cf67b8c36ed.tar.xz |
block, bfq: remove superfluous check in queue-merging setup
When two or more processes do I/O in a way that the their requests are
sequential in respect to one another, BFQ merges the bfq_queues associated
with the processes. This way the overall I/O pattern becomes sequential,
and thus there is a boost in througput.
These cooperating processes usually start or restart to do I/O shortly
after each other. So, in order to avoid merging non-cooperating processes,
BFQ ensures that none of these queues has been in weight raising for too
long.
In this respect, from commit "block, bfq-sq, bfq-mq: let a queue be merged
only shortly after being created", BFQ checks whether any queue (and not
only weight-raised ones) is doing I/O continuously from too long to be
merged.
This new additional check makes the first one useless: a queue doing
I/O from long enough, if being weight-raised, is also a queue in
weight raising for too long to be merged. Accordingly, this commit
removes the first check.
Signed-off-by: Angelo Ruocco <angeloruocco90@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.com>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Diffstat (limited to 'block')
-rw-r--r-- | block/bfq-iosched.c | 36 |
1 files changed, 5 insertions, 31 deletions
diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c index 7066d90f09df..9625550b2f85 100644 --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c @@ -1991,20 +1991,6 @@ static bool bfq_may_be_close_cooperator(struct bfq_queue *bfqq, } /* - * If this function returns true, then bfqq cannot be merged. The idea - * is that true cooperation happens very early after processes start - * to do I/O. Usually, late cooperations are just accidental false - * positives. In case bfqq is weight-raised, such false positives - * would evidently degrade latency guarantees for bfqq. - */ -static bool wr_from_too_long(struct bfq_queue *bfqq) -{ - return bfqq->wr_coeff > 1 && - time_is_before_jiffies(bfqq->last_wr_start_finish + - msecs_to_jiffies(100)); -} - -/* * Attempt to schedule a merge of bfqq with the currently in-service * queue or with a close queue among the scheduled queues. Return * NULL if no merge was scheduled, a pointer to the shared bfq_queue @@ -2017,11 +2003,6 @@ static bool wr_from_too_long(struct bfq_queue *bfqq) * to maintain. Besides, in such a critical condition as an out of memory, * the benefits of queue merging may be little relevant, or even negligible. * - * Weight-raised queues can be merged only if their weight-raising - * period has just started. In fact cooperating processes are usually - * started together. Thus, with this filter we avoid false positives - * that would jeopardize low-latency guarantees. - * * WARNING: queue merging may impair fairness among non-weight raised * queues, for at least two reasons: 1) the original weight of a * merged queue may change during the merged state, 2) even being the @@ -2052,9 +2033,7 @@ bfq_setup_cooperator(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq, if (bfqq->new_bfqq) return bfqq->new_bfqq; - if (!io_struct || - wr_from_too_long(bfqq) || - unlikely(bfqq == &bfqd->oom_bfqq)) + if (!io_struct || unlikely(bfqq == &bfqd->oom_bfqq)) return NULL; /* If there is only one backlogged queue, don't search. */ @@ -2063,12 +2042,9 @@ bfq_setup_cooperator(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq, in_service_bfqq = bfqd->in_service_queue; - if (!in_service_bfqq || in_service_bfqq == bfqq - || wr_from_too_long(in_service_bfqq) || - unlikely(in_service_bfqq == &bfqd->oom_bfqq)) - goto check_scheduled; - - if (bfq_rq_close_to_sector(io_struct, request, bfqd->last_position) && + if (in_service_bfqq && in_service_bfqq != bfqq && + likely(in_service_bfqq != &bfqd->oom_bfqq) && + bfq_rq_close_to_sector(io_struct, request, bfqd->last_position) && bfqq->entity.parent == in_service_bfqq->entity.parent && bfq_may_be_close_cooperator(bfqq, in_service_bfqq)) { new_bfqq = bfq_setup_merge(bfqq, in_service_bfqq); @@ -2080,12 +2056,10 @@ bfq_setup_cooperator(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq, * queues. The only thing we need is that the bio/request is not * NULL, as we need it to establish whether a cooperator exists. */ -check_scheduled: new_bfqq = bfq_find_close_cooperator(bfqd, bfqq, bfq_io_struct_pos(io_struct, request)); - if (new_bfqq && !wr_from_too_long(new_bfqq) && - likely(new_bfqq != &bfqd->oom_bfqq) && + if (new_bfqq && likely(new_bfqq != &bfqd->oom_bfqq) && bfq_may_be_close_cooperator(bfqq, new_bfqq)) return bfq_setup_merge(bfqq, new_bfqq); |