[lkml]   [2018]   [May]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] block: kyber: make kyber more friendly with merging
On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 4:36 PM,
<> wrote:
> Hi ming
> Thanks for your kindly response.
> On 05/30/2018 04:22 PM, Ming Lei wrote:
>>>> you could keep the software queues as-is but add our own version of
>>>> flush_busy_ctxs() that only removes requests of the domain that we want.
>>>> If one domain gets backed up, that might get messy with long iterations,
>>>> though.
>>> Yes, I also considered this approach :)
>>> But the long iterations on every ctx->rq_list looks really inefficient.
>> Right, this list can be quite long if dispatch token is used up.
>> You might try to introduce per-domain list into ctx directly, then 'none'
>> may benefit from this change too since bio merge should be done
>> on the per-domain list actually.
> Yes, it maybe good for merging of 'none', because the rq_list is split into 3
> lists, and not need to iterate the whole rq_list any more.
> But what's about the dispatch when there is no io scheduler.

blk_mq_flush_busy_ctxs() and blk_mq_dequeue_from_ctx() should work
fine in case of 'none' if per-domain list is added to ctx. Then we can make
none to be a bit fair on READ/WRITE.

> We will dispatch request from ctx one by one at the moment.
> If we have per-domain list in ctx, we have to introduce some policies to determine
> which domain to dispatch, and these policies should be in io scheduler actually.

The policy is done by IO scheduler, and you can just pick up request
from ctx/domain list easily by introducing one blk-mq core API.

Ming Lei

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-05-30 11:15    [W:0.062 / U:2.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site