summaryrefslogtreecommitdiffstats
path: root/block/bfq-iosched.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorAngelo Ruocco <angeloruocco90@gmail.com>2017-12-20 12:38:34 +0100
committerJens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>2018-01-05 09:26:11 -0700
commit4403e4e467c365b4189e3e3d3ad35cf67b8c36ed (patch)
tree6bc388cb660f4673aacbbcc705030c589c4748e5 /block/bfq-iosched.c
parent7b8fa3b900a087bc03b11329a92398fde563ba37 (diff)
downloadlinux-0-day-4403e4e467c365b4189e3e3d3ad35cf67b8c36ed.tar.gz
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/bfq-iosched.c')
-rw-r--r--block/bfq-iosched.c36
1 files changed, 5 insertions, 31 deletions
diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
index 7066d90..9625550 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);