On Wed, Nov 12 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:19:36 +0100
> Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Nov 11 2008, Alan Stern wrote:
> > > On Tue, 11 Nov 2008, FUJITA Tomonori wrote:
> > >
> > > > I don't worry about anything. I just think that these round_jiffies_up
> > > > are pointless because they were added for the block-layer users that
> > > > care about exact timeouts, however the block-layer doesn't export
> > > > blk_add_timer() so the block-layer users can't control the exact time
> > > > when the timer starts. So doing round_jiffies_up calculation per every
> > > > request doesn't make sense for me.
> > >
> > > In fact the round_jiffies_up() routines were added for other users as
> > > well as the block layer. However none of the others could be changed
> > > until the routines were merged. Now that the routines are in the
> > > mainline, you should see them start to be called in multiple places.
> > >
> > > Also, the users of the block layer _don't_ care about exact timeouts.
> > > That's an important aspect of round_jiffies() and round_jiffies_up() --
> > > you don't use them if you want an exact timeout.
> > >
> > > The reason for using round_jiffies() is to insure that the timeout
> > > will occur at a 1-second boundary. If several timeouts are set for
> > > about the same time and they all use round_jiffies() or
> > > round_jiffies_up(), then they will all occur at the same tick instead
> > > of spread out among several different ticks during the course of that
> > > 1-second interval. As a result, the system will need to wake up only
> > > once to service all those timeouts, instead of waking up several
> > > different times. It is a power-saving scheme.
>
> Hmm, but for 99.9% of the cases, the timeout of the block layer
> doesn't expire, the timeout rarely happens. The power-saving scheme
> can be applied to only 0.1%, but at the cost of the round_jiffies
> overhead per every request.
>
> If I understand correctly, round_jiffies() is designed for timers that
> will expire, such as periodic checking. The power-saving scheme nicely
> works for such usages.
Your understanding is correct. The overhead of round_jiffies() is not
large, though.
I want to get rid of this in blk_delete_timer():
if (list_empty(&q->timeout_list))
del_timer(&q->timeout);
though and simply let the timer run even if the list is empty, since for
sync sequential IO we'll be fiddling a much with the timer as we did
before unifying it. And then the timer will expire every x seconds
always and it becomes more important with the grouping.
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
