On 5/23/24 12:04 AM, yunlong xing wrote:
> Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx> ?2024?5?23??? 02:12???
>>
>> On 5/22/24 10:57, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 5/22/24 11:38 AM, Bart Van Assche wrote:
>>>> On 5/22/24 00:48, Yunlong Xing wrote:
>>>>> @@ -1913,6 +1921,10 @@ static void loop_handle_cmd(struct loop_cmd *cmd)
>>>>> set_active_memcg(old_memcg);
>>>>> css_put(cmd_memcg_css);
>>>>> }
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (ori_ioprio != cmd_ioprio)
>>>>> + set_task_ioprio(current, ori_ioprio);
>>>>> +
>>>>> failed:
>>>>> /* complete non-aio request */
>>>>> if (!use_aio || ret) {
>>>>
>>>> Does adding this call in the hot path have a measurable performance impact?
>>>
>>> It's loop, I would not be concerned with overhead. But it does look pretty
>>> bogus to modify the task ioprio from here.
>>
>> Hi Jens,
>>
>> Maybe Yunlong uses that call to pass the I/O priority to the I/O submitter?
>>
>> I think that it is easy to pass the I/O priority to the kiocb submitted by
>> lo_rw_aio() without calling set_task_ioprio().
>>
>> lo_read_simple() and lo_write_simple() however call vfs_iter_read() /
>> vfs_iter_write(). This results in a call of do_iter_readv_writev() and
>> init_sync_kiocb(). The latter function calls get_current_ioprio(). This is
>> probably why the set_task_ioprio() call has been added?
>
> Yeah that's why I call set_task_ioprio. I want to the loop kwoker
> task?submit I/O to the real disk device?can pass the iopriority of the
> loop device request? both lo_rw_aio() and
> lo_read_simple()/lo_write_simple().
And that's a totally backwards and suboptimal way to do it. The task
priority is only used as a last resort lower down, if the IO itself
hasn't been appropriately marked.
Like I said, it's back to the drawing board on this patch, there's no
way it's acceptable in its current form.
--
Jens Axboe
