On 7/14/23 5:31?AM, Chengming Zhou wrote: > On 2023/7/14 01:58, Tejun Heo wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 08:25:50PM +0800, Chengming Zhou wrote: >>> Ok, this version will only get time stamp once for one request, it's actually >>> not worse than the current code, which will get start time stamp once for each >>> request even in the batch allocation. >>> >>> But yes, maybe we can also set the start time stamp in the batch mode, and only >>> update the time stamp in the block case, like you said, has better performance. >>> >>> The first version [1] I posted actually just did this, in which use a nr_flush counter >>> in plug to indicate that we blocked & flushed plug. Tejun and I think it seems fragile. >>> So go to this way that only set time stamp once when the request actually used. >>> >>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230601053919.3639954-1-chengming.zhou@xxxxxxxxx/ >>> >>> Another way I can think of is to make rq_qos_throttle() return a bool to indicate >>> if it blocked. Tejun and Jens, how do you think about this way? >>> >>> Although it's better performance, in case of preemption, the time stamp maybe not accurate. >> >> Trying to manually optimized timestamp reads seems like a bit of fool's >> errand to me. I don't think anyone cares about nanosec accuracy, so there >> are ample opportunities for generically caching timestamp so that we don't >> have to contort code to optimzie timestamp calls. >> >> It's a bit out of scope for this patchset but I think it might make sense to >> build a timestamp caching infrastructure. The cached timestamp can be >> invalidated on context switches (block layer already hooks into them) and >> issue and other path boundaries (e.g. at the end of plug flush). >> > > Yes, this is a really great idea. It has better performance and is > more generic. Do you want to work on that approach? I pretty much outlined how I think it'd work in the previous reply. -- Jens Axboe
