On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 3:14 PM Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Yin,
>
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 02:52:00PM +0800, Xin Yin wrote:
> > For now, enqueuing and dequeuing on-demand requests all start from
> > idx 0, this makes request distribution unfair. In the weighty
> > concurrent I/O scenario, the request stored in higher idx will starve.
> >
> > Searching requests cyclically in cachefiles_ondemand_daemon_read,
> > makes distribution fairer.
>
> Yeah, thanks for the catch. The previous approach could cause somewhat
> unfairness and make some requests starving... But we don't need strict
> FIFO here.
>
> >
> > Reported-by: Yongqing Li <liyongqing@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Xin Yin <yinxin.x@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/cachefiles/internal.h | 1 +
> > fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c | 12 +++++++++---
> > 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/cachefiles/internal.h b/fs/cachefiles/internal.h
> > index 6cba2c6de2f9..2ad58c465208 100644
> > --- a/fs/cachefiles/internal.h
> > +++ b/fs/cachefiles/internal.h
> > @@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ struct cachefiles_cache {
> > char *tag; /* cache binding tag */
> > refcount_t unbind_pincount;/* refcount to do daemon unbind */
> > struct xarray reqs; /* xarray of pending on-demand requests */
> > + unsigned long req_id_next;
>
> unsigned long ondemand_req_id_next; ?
Hi Xiang,
Thanks for the detailed review , whether "ondemand_req_id_next" is a
little long ? struct cachefiles_cache only holds on-demand requests ,
so I think "req_id_next" will not cause ambiguity. Does this make
sense?
Thanks,
Xin Yin
>
> Otherwise it looks good to me,
>
> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang
>
> > struct xarray ondemand_ids; /* xarray for ondemand_id allocation */
> > u32 ondemand_id_next;
> > };
> > diff --git a/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c b/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c
> > index 1fee702d5529..247961d65369 100644
> > --- a/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c
> > +++ b/fs/cachefiles/ondemand.c
> > @@ -238,14 +238,19 @@ ssize_t cachefiles_ondemand_daemon_read(struct cachefiles_cache *cache,
> > unsigned long id = 0;
> > size_t n;
> > int ret = 0;
> > - XA_STATE(xas, &cache->reqs, 0);
> > + XA_STATE(xas, &cache->reqs, cache->req_id_next);
> >
> > /*
> > - * Search for a request that has not ever been processed, to prevent
> > - * requests from being processed repeatedly.
> > + * Cyclically search for a request that has not ever been processed,
> > + * to prevent requests from being processed repeatedly, and make
> > + * request distribution fair.
> > */
> > xa_lock(&cache->reqs);
> > req = xas_find_marked(&xas, UINT_MAX, CACHEFILES_REQ_NEW);
> > + if (!req && cache->req_id_next > 0) {
> > + xas_set(&xas, 0);
> > + req = xas_find_marked(&xas, cache->req_id_next - 1, CACHEFILES_REQ_NEW);
> > + }
> > if (!req) {
> > xa_unlock(&cache->reqs);
> > return 0;
> > @@ -260,6 +265,7 @@ ssize_t cachefiles_ondemand_daemon_read(struct cachefiles_cache *cache,
> > }
> >
> > xas_clear_mark(&xas, CACHEFILES_REQ_NEW);
> > + cache->req_id_next = xas.xa_index + 1;
> > xa_unlock(&cache->reqs);
> >
> > id = xas.xa_index;
> > --
> > 2.25.1
> >
> > --
> > Linux-cachefs mailing list
> > Linux-cachefs@xxxxxxxxxx
> > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs
--
Linux-cachefs mailing list
Linux-cachefs@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs
