On 1/26/21 3:50 AM, Paolo Valente wrote:
> Consider a new I/O request that arrives for a bfq_queue bfqq. If, when
> this happens, the only active bfq_queues are bfqq and either its waker
> bfq_queue or one of its woken bfq_queues, then there is no point in
> queueing this new I/O request in bfqq for service. In fact, the
> in-service queue and bfqq agree on serving this new I/O request as
> soon as possible. So this commit puts this new I/O request directly
> into the dispatch list.
>
> Tested-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> block/bfq-iosched.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
> index a83149407336..e5b83910fbe0 100644
> --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
> +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
> @@ -5640,7 +5640,22 @@ static void bfq_insert_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx, struct request *rq,
>
> spin_lock_irq(&bfqd->lock);
> bfqq = bfq_init_rq(rq);
> - if (!bfqq || at_head || blk_rq_is_passthrough(rq)) {
> +
> + /*
> + * Additional case for putting rq directly into the dispatch
> + * queue: the only active bfq_queues are bfqq and either its
> + * waker bfq_queue or one of its woken bfq_queues. In this
> + * case, there is no point in queueing rq in bfqq for
> + * service. In fact, the in-service queue and bfqq agree on
> + * serving this new I/O request as soon as possible.
> + */
> + if (!bfqq ||
> + (bfqq != bfqd->in_service_queue &&
> + bfqd->in_service_queue != NULL &&
> + bfq_tot_busy_queues(bfqd) == 1 + bfq_bfqq_busy(bfqq) &&
> + (bfqq->waker_bfqq == bfqd->in_service_queue ||
> + bfqd->in_service_queue->waker_bfqq == bfqq)) ||
> + at_head || blk_rq_is_passthrough(rq)) {
> if (at_head)
> list_add(&rq->queuelist, &bfqd->dispatch);
> else
>
This is unreadable... Just seems like you are piling heuristics in to
catch some case, and it's neither readable nor clean.
--
Jens Axboe
