On Mon, Oct 17, 2022 at 10:00:06AM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
> Since commit ac33e91e2daca ("blk-iocost: implement vtime loss
> compensation") rename original vtime_base to vtime_base_rate
> and current vtime_base is original vtime_base with compensation.
^
vtime_rate
There are multiple places with the same mistake. Can you please fix the
patch description?
> The current rate showed in tracepoint is mixed with vtime_base
> and vtime_base_rate:
> 1) In function ioc_adjust_base_vrate, the first trace_iocost_ioc_vrate_adj
> shows vtime_base, the second trace_iocost_ioc_vrate_adj shows
> vtime_base_rate.
> 2) In function iocg_activate shows vtime_base by calling
> TRACE_IOCG_PATH(iocg_activate...
> 3) In function ioc_check_iocgs shows vtime_base by calling
> TRACE_IOCG_PATH(iocg_idle...
>
> Trace vtime_base_rate instead of vtime_rate as:
> 1) Before commit ac33e91e2daca ("blk-iocost: implement vtime loss
> compensation"), the traced rate is without compensation, so still
> show rate without compensation.
> 2) The vtime_base_rate is more stable while vtime_rate heavily depends on
> excess budeget on current period which may change abruptly in next period.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kemeng Shi <shikemeng@xxxxxxxxxx>
Other than that,
Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks.
--
tejun
