On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 10:42 PM, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 12:24:48PM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jul 27, 2011 at 06:17:15PM +0800, Zhi Yong Wu wrote:
>> >> >> + wait_time = 1;
>> >> >> + }
>> >> >> +
>> >> >> + wait_time = wait_time + (slice_time - elapsed_time);
>> >> >> + if (wait) {
>> >> >> + *wait = wait_time * BLOCK_IO_SLICE_TIME * 10 + 1;
>> >> >> + }
>> >> >
>> >> > The guest can keep submitting requests where "wait_time = 1" above,
>> >> > and the timer will be rearmed continuously in the future.
>> >
>> > This is wrong.
>> >
>> >> Can't you
>> >> > simply arm the timer to the next slice start? _Some_ data must be
>> >> > transfered by then, anyway (and nothing can be transfered earlier than
>> >> > that).
>> >
>> > This is valid.
>> >
>> >> Sorry, i have got what you mean. Can you elaborate in more detail?
>> >
>> > Sorry, the bug i mentioned about timer being rearmed does not exist.
>> >
>> > But arming the timer for the last request as its done is confusing/unnecessary.
>> >
>> > The timer processes queued requests, but the timer is armed accordingly
>> > to the last queued request in the slice. For example, if a request is
>> > submitted 1ms before the slice ends, the timer is armed 100ms +
>> > (slice_time - elapsed_time) in the future.
>>
>> If the timer is simply amred to the next slice start, this timer will
>> be a periodic timer, either the I/O rate can not be throttled under
>> the limits, or the enqueued request can be delayed to handled, this
>> will lower I/O rate seriously than the limits.
>
> Yes, periodic but disarmed when there is no queueing. I don't understand
> your point about low I/O rate.
We hope that at the same time the runtime I/O rate is throttled under
this limits, it can be very close to the limits. If the timer is
simpily armed to the next slice, the enqueued request could be delayed
a bit long to be handled, this could make current I/O rate lowerer
largely than the limits. So this could seriously hurt the I/O
performance.
>
>> Maybe the slice time should be variable with current I/O rate. What do
>> you think of it?
>
> Not sure if its necessary. The slice should be small to avoid excessive
> work on timer context, but the advantage of increasing the slice is
> very small if any. BTW, 10ms seems a better default than 100ms.
Thanks for your comments, if you're interested, pls take a look at the
code V3. It has added the codes for variable slice time.
>
>
--
Regards,
Zhi Yong Wu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
