[PATCH -next v5 0/8] bugfix and cleanup for blk-throttle

[PATCH -next v5 0/8] bugfix and cleanup for blk-throttle

[Yu Kuai]

Changes in v5:
 - add comments in patch 4
 - clear bytes/io_skipped in throtl_start_new_slice_with_credit() in
 patch 4
 - and cleanup patches 5-8
Changes in v4:
 - add reviewed-by tag for patch 1
 - add patch 2,3
 - use a different way to fix io hung in patch 4
Changes in v3:
 - fix a check in patch 1
 - fix link err in patch 2 on 32-bit platform
 - handle overflow in patch 2
Changes in v2:
 - use a new solution suggested by Ming
 - change the title of patch 1
 - add patch 2

Patch 1 fix that blk-throttle can't work if multiple bios are throttle,
Patch 2 fix overflow while calculating wait time
Patch 3,4 fix io hung due to configuration updates.
Patch 5-8 are cleanup patches, there are no functional changes, just
some places that I think can be optimized during code review.

Previous version:
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220517134909.2910251-1-yukuai3@huawei.com/
v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220518072751.1188163-1-yukuai3@huawei.com/
v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220519085811.879097-1-yukuai3@huawei.com/
v4: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220523082633.2324980-1-yukuai3@huawei.com/

Yu Kuai (8):
  blk-throttle: fix that io throttle can only work for single bio
  blk-throttle: prevent overflow while calculating wait time
  blk-throttle: factor out code to calculate ios/bytes_allowed
  blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates
  blk-throttle: use 'READ/WRITE' instead of '0/1'
  blk-throttle: calling throtl_dequeue/enqueue_tg in pairs
  blk-throttle: cleanup tg_update_disptime()
  blk-throttle: clean up flag 'THROTL_TG_PENDING'

 block/blk-throttle.c | 158 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 block/blk-throttle.h |  16 +++--
 2 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)

-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH -next v5 0/8] bugfix and cleanup for blk-throttle

[Yu Kuai]

Changes in v5:
 - add comments in patch 4
 - clear bytes/io_skipped in throtl_start_new_slice_with_credit() in
 patch 4
 - and cleanup patches 5-8
Changes in v4:
 - add reviewed-by tag for patch 1
 - add patch 2,3
 - use a different way to fix io hung in patch 4
Changes in v3:
 - fix a check in patch 1
 - fix link err in patch 2 on 32-bit platform
 - handle overflow in patch 2
Changes in v2:
 - use a new solution suggested by Ming
 - change the title of patch 1
 - add patch 2

Patch 1 fix that blk-throttle can't work if multiple bios are throttle,
Patch 2 fix overflow while calculating wait time
Patch 3,4 fix io hung due to configuration updates.
Patch 5-8 are cleanup patches, there are no functional changes, just
some places that I think can be optimized during code review.

Previous version:
v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220517134909.2910251-1-yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org/
v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220518072751.1188163-1-yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org/
v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220519085811.879097-1-yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org/
v4: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220523082633.2324980-1-yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org/

Yu Kuai (8):
  blk-throttle: fix that io throttle can only work for single bio
  blk-throttle: prevent overflow while calculating wait time
  blk-throttle: factor out code to calculate ios/bytes_allowed
  blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates
  blk-throttle: use 'READ/WRITE' instead of '0/1'
  blk-throttle: calling throtl_dequeue/enqueue_tg in pairs
  blk-throttle: cleanup tg_update_disptime()
  blk-throttle: clean up flag 'THROTL_TG_PENDING'

 block/blk-throttle.c | 158 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 block/blk-throttle.h |  16 +++--
 2 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)

-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH -next v5 1/8] blk-throttle: fix that io throttle can only work for single bio

[Yu Kuai]

commit 9f5ede3c01f9 ("block: throttle split bio in case of iops limit")
introduce a new problem, for example:

Test scripts:
cd /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio/
echo "8:0 1024" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
echo $$ > cgroup.procs
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=10k count=1 oflag=direct &
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=10k count=1 oflag=direct &

Test result:
10240 bytes (10 kB, 10 KiB) copied, 10.0134 s, 1.0 kB/s
10240 bytes (10 kB, 10 KiB) copied, 10.0135 s, 1.0 kB/s

The problem is that the second bio is finished after 10s instead of 20s.
This is because if some bios are already queued, current bio is queued
directly and the flag 'BIO_THROTTLED' is set. And later, when former
bios are dispatched, this bio will be dispatched without waiting at all,
this is due to tg_with_in_bps_limit() return 0 for this bio.

In order to fix the problem, don't skip flaged bio in
tg_with_in_bps_limit(), and for the problem that split bio can be
double accounted, compensate the over-accounting in __blk_throtl_bio().

Fixes: 9f5ede3c01f9 ("block: throttle split bio in case of iops limit")
Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
---
 block/blk-throttle.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index 139b2d7a99e2..5c1d1c4d8188 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -811,7 +811,7 @@ static bool tg_with_in_bps_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
 	unsigned int bio_size = throtl_bio_data_size(bio);
 
 	/* no need to throttle if this bio's bytes have been accounted */
-	if (bps_limit == U64_MAX || bio_flagged(bio, BIO_THROTTLED)) {
+	if (bps_limit == U64_MAX) {
 		if (wait)
 			*wait = 0;
 		return true;
@@ -921,11 +921,8 @@ static void throtl_charge_bio(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio)
 	unsigned int bio_size = throtl_bio_data_size(bio);
 
 	/* Charge the bio to the group */
-	if (!bio_flagged(bio, BIO_THROTTLED)) {
-		tg->bytes_disp[rw] += bio_size;
-		tg->last_bytes_disp[rw] += bio_size;
-	}
-
+	tg->bytes_disp[rw] += bio_size;
+	tg->last_bytes_disp[rw] += bio_size;
 	tg->io_disp[rw]++;
 	tg->last_io_disp[rw]++;
 
@@ -2121,6 +2118,21 @@ bool __blk_throtl_bio(struct bio *bio)
 			tg->last_low_overflow_time[rw] = jiffies;
 		throtl_downgrade_check(tg);
 		throtl_upgrade_check(tg);
+
+		/*
+		 * re-entered bio has accounted bytes already, so try to
+		 * compensate previous over-accounting. However, if new
+		 * slice is started, just forget it.
+		 */
+		if (bio_flagged(bio, BIO_THROTTLED)) {
+			unsigned int bio_size = throtl_bio_data_size(bio);
+
+			if (tg->bytes_disp[rw] >= bio_size)
+				tg->bytes_disp[rw] -= bio_size;
+			if (tg->last_bytes_disp[rw] >= bio_size)
+				tg->last_bytes_disp[rw] -= bio_size;
+		}
+
 		/* throtl is FIFO - if bios are already queued, should queue */
 		if (sq->nr_queued[rw])
 			break;
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH -next v5 1/8] blk-throttle: fix that io throttle can only work for single bio

[Yu Kuai]

commit 9f5ede3c01f9 ("block: throttle split bio in case of iops limit")
introduce a new problem, for example:

Test scripts:
cd /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio/
echo "8:0 1024" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
echo $$ > cgroup.procs
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=10k count=1 oflag=direct &
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=10k count=1 oflag=direct &

Test result:
10240 bytes (10 kB, 10 KiB) copied, 10.0134 s, 1.0 kB/s
10240 bytes (10 kB, 10 KiB) copied, 10.0135 s, 1.0 kB/s

The problem is that the second bio is finished after 10s instead of 20s.
This is because if some bios are already queued, current bio is queued
directly and the flag 'BIO_THROTTLED' is set. And later, when former
bios are dispatched, this bio will be dispatched without waiting at all,
this is due to tg_with_in_bps_limit() return 0 for this bio.

In order to fix the problem, don't skip flaged bio in
tg_with_in_bps_limit(), and for the problem that split bio can be
double accounted, compensate the over-accounting in __blk_throtl_bio().

Fixes: 9f5ede3c01f9 ("block: throttle split bio in case of iops limit")
Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
---
 block/blk-throttle.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index 139b2d7a99e2..5c1d1c4d8188 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -811,7 +811,7 @@ static bool tg_with_in_bps_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
 	unsigned int bio_size = throtl_bio_data_size(bio);
 
 	/* no need to throttle if this bio's bytes have been accounted */
-	if (bps_limit == U64_MAX || bio_flagged(bio, BIO_THROTTLED)) {
+	if (bps_limit == U64_MAX) {
 		if (wait)
 			*wait = 0;
 		return true;
@@ -921,11 +921,8 @@ static void throtl_charge_bio(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio)
 	unsigned int bio_size = throtl_bio_data_size(bio);
 
 	/* Charge the bio to the group */
-	if (!bio_flagged(bio, BIO_THROTTLED)) {
-		tg->bytes_disp[rw] += bio_size;
-		tg->last_bytes_disp[rw] += bio_size;
-	}
-
+	tg->bytes_disp[rw] += bio_size;
+	tg->last_bytes_disp[rw] += bio_size;
 	tg->io_disp[rw]++;
 	tg->last_io_disp[rw]++;
 
@@ -2121,6 +2118,21 @@ bool __blk_throtl_bio(struct bio *bio)
 			tg->last_low_overflow_time[rw] = jiffies;
 		throtl_downgrade_check(tg);
 		throtl_upgrade_check(tg);
+
+		/*
+		 * re-entered bio has accounted bytes already, so try to
+		 * compensate previous over-accounting. However, if new
+		 * slice is started, just forget it.
+		 */
+		if (bio_flagged(bio, BIO_THROTTLED)) {
+			unsigned int bio_size = throtl_bio_data_size(bio);
+
+			if (tg->bytes_disp[rw] >= bio_size)
+				tg->bytes_disp[rw] -= bio_size;
+			if (tg->last_bytes_disp[rw] >= bio_size)
+				tg->last_bytes_disp[rw] -= bio_size;
+		}
+
 		/* throtl is FIFO - if bios are already queued, should queue */
 		if (sq->nr_queued[rw])
 			break;
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH -next v5 2/8] blk-throttle: prevent overflow while calculating wait time

[Yu Kuai]

In tg_with_in_bps_limit(), 'bps_limit * jiffy_elapsed_rnd' might
overflow. FIx the problem by calling mul_u64_u64_div_u64() instead.

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
---
 block/blk-throttle.c | 8 +++-----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index 5c1d1c4d8188..a89c62bef2fb 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -806,7 +806,7 @@ static bool tg_with_in_bps_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
 				 u64 bps_limit, unsigned long *wait)
 {
 	bool rw = bio_data_dir(bio);
-	u64 bytes_allowed, extra_bytes, tmp;
+	u64 bytes_allowed, extra_bytes;
 	unsigned long jiffy_elapsed, jiffy_wait, jiffy_elapsed_rnd;
 	unsigned int bio_size = throtl_bio_data_size(bio);
 
@@ -824,10 +824,8 @@ static bool tg_with_in_bps_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
 		jiffy_elapsed_rnd = tg->td->throtl_slice;
 
 	jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed_rnd, tg->td->throtl_slice);
-
-	tmp = bps_limit * jiffy_elapsed_rnd;
-	do_div(tmp, HZ);
-	bytes_allowed = tmp;
+	bytes_allowed = mul_u64_u64_div_u64(bps_limit, (u64)jiffy_elapsed_rnd,
+					    (u64)HZ);
 
 	if (tg->bytes_disp[rw] + bio_size <= bytes_allowed) {
 		if (wait)
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH -next v5 2/8] blk-throttle: prevent overflow while calculating wait time

[Yu Kuai]

In tg_with_in_bps_limit(), 'bps_limit * jiffy_elapsed_rnd' might
overflow. FIx the problem by calling mul_u64_u64_div_u64() instead.

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
---
 block/blk-throttle.c | 8 +++-----
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index 5c1d1c4d8188..a89c62bef2fb 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -806,7 +806,7 @@ static bool tg_with_in_bps_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
 				 u64 bps_limit, unsigned long *wait)
 {
 	bool rw = bio_data_dir(bio);
-	u64 bytes_allowed, extra_bytes, tmp;
+	u64 bytes_allowed, extra_bytes;
 	unsigned long jiffy_elapsed, jiffy_wait, jiffy_elapsed_rnd;
 	unsigned int bio_size = throtl_bio_data_size(bio);
 
@@ -824,10 +824,8 @@ static bool tg_with_in_bps_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
 		jiffy_elapsed_rnd = tg->td->throtl_slice;
 
 	jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed_rnd, tg->td->throtl_slice);
-
-	tmp = bps_limit * jiffy_elapsed_rnd;
-	do_div(tmp, HZ);
-	bytes_allowed = tmp;
+	bytes_allowed = mul_u64_u64_div_u64(bps_limit, (u64)jiffy_elapsed_rnd,
+					    (u64)HZ);
 
 	if (tg->bytes_disp[rw] + bio_size <= bytes_allowed) {
 		if (wait)
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH -next v5 3/8] blk-throttle: factor out code to calculate ios/bytes_allowed

[Yu Kuai]

No functional changes, new apis will be used in later patches to
calculate wait time for throttled bios while updating config.

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
---
 block/blk-throttle.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index a89c62bef2fb..d67b20ce4d63 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -754,25 +754,12 @@ static inline void throtl_trim_slice(struct throtl_grp *tg, bool rw)
 		   tg->slice_start[rw], tg->slice_end[rw], jiffies);
 }
 
-static bool tg_with_in_iops_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
-				  u32 iops_limit, unsigned long *wait)
+static unsigned int calculate_io_allowed(u32 iops_limit,
+					 unsigned long jiffy_elapsed_rnd)
 {
-	bool rw = bio_data_dir(bio);
 	unsigned int io_allowed;
-	unsigned long jiffy_elapsed, jiffy_wait, jiffy_elapsed_rnd;
 	u64 tmp;
 
-	if (iops_limit == UINT_MAX) {
-		if (wait)
-			*wait = 0;
-		return true;
-	}
-
-	jiffy_elapsed = jiffies - tg->slice_start[rw];
-
-	/* Round up to the next throttle slice, wait time must be nonzero */
-	jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed + 1, tg->td->throtl_slice);
-
 	/*
 	 * jiffy_elapsed_rnd should not be a big value as minimum iops can be
 	 * 1 then at max jiffy elapsed should be equivalent of 1 second as we
@@ -788,6 +775,33 @@ static bool tg_with_in_iops_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
 	else
 		io_allowed = tmp;
 
+	return io_allowed;
+}
+
+static u64 calculate_bytes_allowed(u64 bps_limit,
+				   unsigned long jiffy_elapsed_rnd)
+{
+	return mul_u64_u64_div_u64(bps_limit, (u64)jiffy_elapsed_rnd, (u64)HZ);
+}
+
+static bool tg_with_in_iops_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
+				  u32 iops_limit, unsigned long *wait)
+{
+	bool rw = bio_data_dir(bio);
+	unsigned int io_allowed;
+	unsigned long jiffy_elapsed, jiffy_wait, jiffy_elapsed_rnd;
+
+	if (iops_limit == UINT_MAX) {
+		if (wait)
+			*wait = 0;
+		return true;
+	}
+
+	jiffy_elapsed = jiffies - tg->slice_start[rw];
+
+	/* Round up to the next throttle slice, wait time must be nonzero */
+	jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed + 1, tg->td->throtl_slice);
+	io_allowed = calculate_io_allowed(iops_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd);
 	if (tg->io_disp[rw] + 1 <= io_allowed) {
 		if (wait)
 			*wait = 0;
@@ -824,9 +838,7 @@ static bool tg_with_in_bps_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
 		jiffy_elapsed_rnd = tg->td->throtl_slice;
 
 	jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed_rnd, tg->td->throtl_slice);
-	bytes_allowed = mul_u64_u64_div_u64(bps_limit, (u64)jiffy_elapsed_rnd,
-					    (u64)HZ);
-
+	bytes_allowed = calculate_bytes_allowed(bps_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd);
 	if (tg->bytes_disp[rw] + bio_size <= bytes_allowed) {
 		if (wait)
 			*wait = 0;
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH -next v5 3/8] blk-throttle: factor out code to calculate ios/bytes_allowed

[Yu Kuai]

No functional changes, new apis will be used in later patches to
calculate wait time for throttled bios while updating config.

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>
---
 block/blk-throttle.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
 1 file changed, 30 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index a89c62bef2fb..d67b20ce4d63 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -754,25 +754,12 @@ static inline void throtl_trim_slice(struct throtl_grp *tg, bool rw)
 		   tg->slice_start[rw], tg->slice_end[rw], jiffies);
 }
 
-static bool tg_with_in_iops_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
-				  u32 iops_limit, unsigned long *wait)
+static unsigned int calculate_io_allowed(u32 iops_limit,
+					 unsigned long jiffy_elapsed_rnd)
 {
-	bool rw = bio_data_dir(bio);
 	unsigned int io_allowed;
-	unsigned long jiffy_elapsed, jiffy_wait, jiffy_elapsed_rnd;
 	u64 tmp;
 
-	if (iops_limit == UINT_MAX) {
-		if (wait)
-			*wait = 0;
-		return true;
-	}
-
-	jiffy_elapsed = jiffies - tg->slice_start[rw];
-
-	/* Round up to the next throttle slice, wait time must be nonzero */
-	jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed + 1, tg->td->throtl_slice);
-
 	/*
 	 * jiffy_elapsed_rnd should not be a big value as minimum iops can be
 	 * 1 then at max jiffy elapsed should be equivalent of 1 second as we
@@ -788,6 +775,33 @@ static bool tg_with_in_iops_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
 	else
 		io_allowed = tmp;
 
+	return io_allowed;
+}
+
+static u64 calculate_bytes_allowed(u64 bps_limit,
+				   unsigned long jiffy_elapsed_rnd)
+{
+	return mul_u64_u64_div_u64(bps_limit, (u64)jiffy_elapsed_rnd, (u64)HZ);
+}
+
+static bool tg_with_in_iops_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
+				  u32 iops_limit, unsigned long *wait)
+{
+	bool rw = bio_data_dir(bio);
+	unsigned int io_allowed;
+	unsigned long jiffy_elapsed, jiffy_wait, jiffy_elapsed_rnd;
+
+	if (iops_limit == UINT_MAX) {
+		if (wait)
+			*wait = 0;
+		return true;
+	}
+
+	jiffy_elapsed = jiffies - tg->slice_start[rw];
+
+	/* Round up to the next throttle slice, wait time must be nonzero */
+	jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed + 1, tg->td->throtl_slice);
+	io_allowed = calculate_io_allowed(iops_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd);
 	if (tg->io_disp[rw] + 1 <= io_allowed) {
 		if (wait)
 			*wait = 0;
@@ -824,9 +838,7 @@ static bool tg_with_in_bps_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
 		jiffy_elapsed_rnd = tg->td->throtl_slice;
 
 	jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed_rnd, tg->td->throtl_slice);
-	bytes_allowed = mul_u64_u64_div_u64(bps_limit, (u64)jiffy_elapsed_rnd,
-					    (u64)HZ);
-
+	bytes_allowed = calculate_bytes_allowed(bps_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd);
 	if (tg->bytes_disp[rw] + bio_size <= bytes_allowed) {
 		if (wait)
 			*wait = 0;
-- 
2.31.1

Re: [PATCH -next v5 3/8] blk-throttle: factor out code to calculate ios/bytes_allowed

[Michal Koutný]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 265 bytes --]

On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 02:43:25PM +0800, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> wrote:
> +static u64 calculate_bytes_allowed(u64 bps_limit,
> +				   unsigned long jiffy_elapsed_rnd)

Just noticed with all series applied this argument needn't be called
_rnd. (It's a nit.)


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH -next v5 3/8] blk-throttle: factor out code to calculate ios/bytes_allowed

[Yu Kuai]

Hi，

在 2022/06/23 1:27, Michal Koutný 写道:
> On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 02:43:25PM +0800, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> wrote:
>> +static u64 calculate_bytes_allowed(u64 bps_limit,
>> +				   unsigned long jiffy_elapsed_rnd)
> 
> Just noticed with all series applied this argument needn't be called
> _rnd. (It's a nit.)
> 

Yes, you're right. I'll change that in next version.

Thanks,
Kuai

Re: [PATCH -next v5 3/8] blk-throttle: factor out code to calculate ios/bytes_allowed

[Yu Kuai]

Hi，

在 2022/06/23 1:27, Michal Koutný 写道:
> On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 02:43:25PM +0800, Yu Kuai <yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> +static u64 calculate_bytes_allowed(u64 bps_limit,
>> +				   unsigned long jiffy_elapsed_rnd)
> 
> Just noticed with all series applied this argument needn't be called
> _rnd. (It's a nit.)
> 

Yes, you're right. I'll change that in next version.

Thanks,
Kuai

[PATCH -next v5 4/8] blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates

[Yu Kuai]

If new configuration is submitted while a bio is throttled, then new
waiting time is recalculated regardless that the bio might aready wait
for some time:

tg_conf_updated
 throtl_start_new_slice
  tg_update_disptime
  throtl_schedule_next_dispatch

Then io hung can be triggered by always submmiting new configuration
before the throttled bio is dispatched.

Fix the problem by respecting the time that throttled bio aready waited.
In order to do that, add new fields to record how many bytes/io already
waited, and use it to calculate wait time for throttled bio under new
configuration.

Some simple test:
1)
cd /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio/
echo $$ > cgroup.procs
echo "8:0 2048" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
{
        sleep 2
        echo "8:0 1024" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
} &
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=8k count=1 oflag=direct

2)
cd /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio/
echo $$ > cgroup.procs
echo "8:0 1024" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
{
        sleep 4
        echo "8:0 2048" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
} &
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=8k count=1 oflag=direct

test results: io finish time
	before this patch	with this patch
1)	10s			6s
2)	8s			6s

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
---
 block/blk-throttle.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 block/blk-throttle.h |  9 ++++++++
 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index d67b20ce4d63..94fd73e8b2d9 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -639,6 +639,8 @@ static inline void throtl_start_new_slice_with_credit(struct throtl_grp *tg,
 {
 	tg->bytes_disp[rw] = 0;
 	tg->io_disp[rw] = 0;
+	tg->bytes_skipped[rw] = 0;
+	tg->io_skipped[rw] = 0;
 
 	/*
 	 * Previous slice has expired. We must have trimmed it after last
@@ -656,12 +658,17 @@ static inline void throtl_start_new_slice_with_credit(struct throtl_grp *tg,
 		   tg->slice_end[rw], jiffies);
 }
 
-static inline void throtl_start_new_slice(struct throtl_grp *tg, bool rw)
+static inline void throtl_start_new_slice(struct throtl_grp *tg, bool rw,
+					  bool clear_skipped)
 {
 	tg->bytes_disp[rw] = 0;
 	tg->io_disp[rw] = 0;
 	tg->slice_start[rw] = jiffies;
 	tg->slice_end[rw] = jiffies + tg->td->throtl_slice;
+	if (clear_skipped) {
+		tg->bytes_skipped[rw] = 0;
+		tg->io_skipped[rw] = 0;
+	}
 
 	throtl_log(&tg->service_queue,
 		   "[%c] new slice start=%lu end=%lu jiffies=%lu",
@@ -784,6 +791,34 @@ static u64 calculate_bytes_allowed(u64 bps_limit,
 	return mul_u64_u64_div_u64(bps_limit, (u64)jiffy_elapsed_rnd, (u64)HZ);
 }
 
+static void __tg_update_skipped(struct throtl_grp *tg, bool rw)
+{
+	unsigned long jiffy_elapsed = jiffies - tg->slice_start[rw];
+	u64 bps_limit = tg_bps_limit(tg, rw);
+	u32 iops_limit = tg_iops_limit(tg, rw);
+
+	if (bps_limit != U64_MAX)
+		tg->bytes_skipped[rw] +=
+			calculate_bytes_allowed(bps_limit, jiffy_elapsed) -
+			tg->bytes_disp[rw];
+	if (iops_limit != UINT_MAX)
+		tg->io_skipped[rw] +=
+			calculate_io_allowed(iops_limit, jiffy_elapsed) -
+			tg->io_disp[rw];
+}
+
+static void tg_update_skipped(struct throtl_grp *tg)
+{
+	if (tg->service_queue.nr_queued[READ])
+		__tg_update_skipped(tg, READ);
+	if (tg->service_queue.nr_queued[WRITE])
+		__tg_update_skipped(tg, WRITE);
+
+	throtl_log(&tg->service_queue, "%s: %llu %llu %u %u\n", __func__,
+		   tg->bytes_skipped[READ], tg->bytes_skipped[WRITE],
+		   tg->io_skipped[READ], tg->io_skipped[WRITE]);
+}
+
 static bool tg_with_in_iops_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
 				  u32 iops_limit, unsigned long *wait)
 {
@@ -801,7 +836,8 @@ static bool tg_with_in_iops_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
 
 	/* Round up to the next throttle slice, wait time must be nonzero */
 	jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed + 1, tg->td->throtl_slice);
-	io_allowed = calculate_io_allowed(iops_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd);
+	io_allowed = calculate_io_allowed(iops_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd) +
+		     tg->io_skipped[rw];
 	if (tg->io_disp[rw] + 1 <= io_allowed) {
 		if (wait)
 			*wait = 0;
@@ -838,7 +874,8 @@ static bool tg_with_in_bps_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
 		jiffy_elapsed_rnd = tg->td->throtl_slice;
 
 	jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed_rnd, tg->td->throtl_slice);
-	bytes_allowed = calculate_bytes_allowed(bps_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd);
+	bytes_allowed = calculate_bytes_allowed(bps_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd) +
+			tg->bytes_skipped[rw];
 	if (tg->bytes_disp[rw] + bio_size <= bytes_allowed) {
 		if (wait)
 			*wait = 0;
@@ -899,7 +936,7 @@ static bool tg_may_dispatch(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
 	 * slice and it should be extended instead.
 	 */
 	if (throtl_slice_used(tg, rw) && !(tg->service_queue.nr_queued[rw]))
-		throtl_start_new_slice(tg, rw);
+		throtl_start_new_slice(tg, rw, true);
 	else {
 		if (time_before(tg->slice_end[rw],
 		    jiffies + tg->td->throtl_slice))
@@ -1328,8 +1365,8 @@ static void tg_conf_updated(struct throtl_grp *tg, bool global)
 	 * that a group's limit are dropped suddenly and we don't want to
 	 * account recently dispatched IO with new low rate.
 	 */
-	throtl_start_new_slice(tg, READ);
-	throtl_start_new_slice(tg, WRITE);
+	throtl_start_new_slice(tg, READ, false);
+	throtl_start_new_slice(tg, WRITE, false);
 
 	if (tg->flags & THROTL_TG_PENDING) {
 		tg_update_disptime(tg);
@@ -1357,6 +1394,7 @@ static ssize_t tg_set_conf(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
 		v = U64_MAX;
 
 	tg = blkg_to_tg(ctx.blkg);
+	tg_update_skipped(tg);
 
 	if (is_u64)
 		*(u64 *)((void *)tg + of_cft(of)->private) = v;
@@ -1543,6 +1581,7 @@ static ssize_t tg_set_limit(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
 		return ret;
 
 	tg = blkg_to_tg(ctx.blkg);
+	tg_update_skipped(tg);
 
 	v[0] = tg->bps_conf[READ][index];
 	v[1] = tg->bps_conf[WRITE][index];
diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.h b/block/blk-throttle.h
index c1b602996127..b8178e6b4d30 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.h
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.h
@@ -115,6 +115,15 @@ struct throtl_grp {
 	uint64_t bytes_disp[2];
 	/* Number of bio's dispatched in current slice */
 	unsigned int io_disp[2];
+	/*
+	 * The following two fields are used to calculate new wait time for
+	 * throttled bio when new configuration is submmited.
+	 *
+	 * Number of bytes will be skipped in current slice
+	 */
+	uint64_t bytes_skipped[2];
+	/* Number of bio will be skipped in current slice */
+	unsigned int io_skipped[2];
 
 	unsigned long last_low_overflow_time[2];
 
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH -next v5 4/8] blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates

[Yu Kuai]

If new configuration is submitted while a bio is throttled, then new
waiting time is recalculated regardless that the bio might aready wait
for some time:

tg_conf_updated
 throtl_start_new_slice
  tg_update_disptime
  throtl_schedule_next_dispatch

Then io hung can be triggered by always submmiting new configuration
before the throttled bio is dispatched.

Fix the problem by respecting the time that throttled bio aready waited.
In order to do that, add new fields to record how many bytes/io already
waited, and use it to calculate wait time for throttled bio under new
configuration.

Some simple test:
1)
cd /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio/
echo $$ > cgroup.procs
echo "8:0 2048" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
{
        sleep 2
        echo "8:0 1024" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
} &
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=8k count=1 oflag=direct

2)
cd /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio/
echo $$ > cgroup.procs
echo "8:0 1024" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
{
        sleep 4
        echo "8:0 2048" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
} &
dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=8k count=1 oflag=direct

test results: io finish time
	before this patch	with this patch
1)	10s			6s
2)	8s			6s

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
---
 block/blk-throttle.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
 block/blk-throttle.h |  9 ++++++++
 2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index d67b20ce4d63..94fd73e8b2d9 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -639,6 +639,8 @@ static inline void throtl_start_new_slice_with_credit(struct throtl_grp *tg,
 {
 	tg->bytes_disp[rw] = 0;
 	tg->io_disp[rw] = 0;
+	tg->bytes_skipped[rw] = 0;
+	tg->io_skipped[rw] = 0;
 
 	/*
 	 * Previous slice has expired. We must have trimmed it after last
@@ -656,12 +658,17 @@ static inline void throtl_start_new_slice_with_credit(struct throtl_grp *tg,
 		   tg->slice_end[rw], jiffies);
 }
 
-static inline void throtl_start_new_slice(struct throtl_grp *tg, bool rw)
+static inline void throtl_start_new_slice(struct throtl_grp *tg, bool rw,
+					  bool clear_skipped)
 {
 	tg->bytes_disp[rw] = 0;
 	tg->io_disp[rw] = 0;
 	tg->slice_start[rw] = jiffies;
 	tg->slice_end[rw] = jiffies + tg->td->throtl_slice;
+	if (clear_skipped) {
+		tg->bytes_skipped[rw] = 0;
+		tg->io_skipped[rw] = 0;
+	}
 
 	throtl_log(&tg->service_queue,
 		   "[%c] new slice start=%lu end=%lu jiffies=%lu",
@@ -784,6 +791,34 @@ static u64 calculate_bytes_allowed(u64 bps_limit,
 	return mul_u64_u64_div_u64(bps_limit, (u64)jiffy_elapsed_rnd, (u64)HZ);
 }
 
+static void __tg_update_skipped(struct throtl_grp *tg, bool rw)
+{
+	unsigned long jiffy_elapsed = jiffies - tg->slice_start[rw];
+	u64 bps_limit = tg_bps_limit(tg, rw);
+	u32 iops_limit = tg_iops_limit(tg, rw);
+
+	if (bps_limit != U64_MAX)
+		tg->bytes_skipped[rw] +=
+			calculate_bytes_allowed(bps_limit, jiffy_elapsed) -
+			tg->bytes_disp[rw];
+	if (iops_limit != UINT_MAX)
+		tg->io_skipped[rw] +=
+			calculate_io_allowed(iops_limit, jiffy_elapsed) -
+			tg->io_disp[rw];
+}
+
+static void tg_update_skipped(struct throtl_grp *tg)
+{
+	if (tg->service_queue.nr_queued[READ])
+		__tg_update_skipped(tg, READ);
+	if (tg->service_queue.nr_queued[WRITE])
+		__tg_update_skipped(tg, WRITE);
+
+	throtl_log(&tg->service_queue, "%s: %llu %llu %u %u\n", __func__,
+		   tg->bytes_skipped[READ], tg->bytes_skipped[WRITE],
+		   tg->io_skipped[READ], tg->io_skipped[WRITE]);
+}
+
 static bool tg_with_in_iops_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
 				  u32 iops_limit, unsigned long *wait)
 {
@@ -801,7 +836,8 @@ static bool tg_with_in_iops_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
 
 	/* Round up to the next throttle slice, wait time must be nonzero */
 	jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed + 1, tg->td->throtl_slice);
-	io_allowed = calculate_io_allowed(iops_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd);
+	io_allowed = calculate_io_allowed(iops_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd) +
+		     tg->io_skipped[rw];
 	if (tg->io_disp[rw] + 1 <= io_allowed) {
 		if (wait)
 			*wait = 0;
@@ -838,7 +874,8 @@ static bool tg_with_in_bps_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
 		jiffy_elapsed_rnd = tg->td->throtl_slice;
 
 	jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed_rnd, tg->td->throtl_slice);
-	bytes_allowed = calculate_bytes_allowed(bps_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd);
+	bytes_allowed = calculate_bytes_allowed(bps_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd) +
+			tg->bytes_skipped[rw];
 	if (tg->bytes_disp[rw] + bio_size <= bytes_allowed) {
 		if (wait)
 			*wait = 0;
@@ -899,7 +936,7 @@ static bool tg_may_dispatch(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
 	 * slice and it should be extended instead.
 	 */
 	if (throtl_slice_used(tg, rw) && !(tg->service_queue.nr_queued[rw]))
-		throtl_start_new_slice(tg, rw);
+		throtl_start_new_slice(tg, rw, true);
 	else {
 		if (time_before(tg->slice_end[rw],
 		    jiffies + tg->td->throtl_slice))
@@ -1328,8 +1365,8 @@ static void tg_conf_updated(struct throtl_grp *tg, bool global)
 	 * that a group's limit are dropped suddenly and we don't want to
 	 * account recently dispatched IO with new low rate.
 	 */
-	throtl_start_new_slice(tg, READ);
-	throtl_start_new_slice(tg, WRITE);
+	throtl_start_new_slice(tg, READ, false);
+	throtl_start_new_slice(tg, WRITE, false);
 
 	if (tg->flags & THROTL_TG_PENDING) {
 		tg_update_disptime(tg);
@@ -1357,6 +1394,7 @@ static ssize_t tg_set_conf(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
 		v = U64_MAX;
 
 	tg = blkg_to_tg(ctx.blkg);
+	tg_update_skipped(tg);
 
 	if (is_u64)
 		*(u64 *)((void *)tg + of_cft(of)->private) = v;
@@ -1543,6 +1581,7 @@ static ssize_t tg_set_limit(struct kernfs_open_file *of,
 		return ret;
 
 	tg = blkg_to_tg(ctx.blkg);
+	tg_update_skipped(tg);
 
 	v[0] = tg->bps_conf[READ][index];
 	v[1] = tg->bps_conf[WRITE][index];
diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.h b/block/blk-throttle.h
index c1b602996127..b8178e6b4d30 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.h
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.h
@@ -115,6 +115,15 @@ struct throtl_grp {
 	uint64_t bytes_disp[2];
 	/* Number of bio's dispatched in current slice */
 	unsigned int io_disp[2];
+	/*
+	 * The following two fields are used to calculate new wait time for
+	 * throttled bio when new configuration is submmited.
+	 *
+	 * Number of bytes will be skipped in current slice
+	 */
+	uint64_t bytes_skipped[2];
+	/* Number of bio will be skipped in current slice */
+	unsigned int io_skipped[2];
 
 	unsigned long last_low_overflow_time[2];
 
-- 
2.31.1

Re: [PATCH -next v5 4/8] blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates

[Michal Koutný]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3434 bytes --]

(Apologies for taking so long before answering.)

On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 02:43:26PM +0800, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> wrote:
> Some simple test:
> 1)
> cd /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio/
> echo $$ > cgroup.procs
> echo "8:0 2048" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
> {
>         sleep 2
>         echo "8:0 1024" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
> } &
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=8k count=1 oflag=direct
> 
> 2)
> cd /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio/
> echo $$ > cgroup.procs
> echo "8:0 1024" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
> {
>         sleep 4
>         echo "8:0 2048" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
> } &
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=8k count=1 oflag=direct
> 
> test results: io finish time
> 	before this patch	with this patch
> 1)	10s			6s
> 2)	8s			6s

I agree these are consistent and correct times.

And the new implementation won't make it worse (in terms of delaying a
bio) than configuring minimal limits from the beginning, AFACT.

> @@ -801,7 +836,8 @@ static bool tg_with_in_iops_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
>  
>  	/* Round up to the next throttle slice, wait time must be nonzero */
>  	jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed + 1, tg->td->throtl_slice);
> -	io_allowed = calculate_io_allowed(iops_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd);
> +	io_allowed = calculate_io_allowed(iops_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd) +
> +		     tg->io_skipped[rw];
>  	if (tg->io_disp[rw] + 1 <= io_allowed) {
>  		if (wait)
>  			*wait = 0;
> @@ -838,7 +874,8 @@ static bool tg_with_in_bps_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
>  		jiffy_elapsed_rnd = tg->td->throtl_slice;
>  
>  	jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed_rnd, tg->td->throtl_slice);
> -	bytes_allowed = calculate_bytes_allowed(bps_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd);
> +	bytes_allowed = calculate_bytes_allowed(bps_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd) +
> +			tg->bytes_skipped[rw];
>  	if (tg->bytes_disp[rw] + bio_size <= bytes_allowed) {
>  		if (wait)
>  			*wait = 0;
>

Here we may allow to dispatch a bio above current slice's
calculate_bytes_allowed() if bytes_skipped is already >0.

bytes_disp + bio_size <= calculate_bytes_allowed() + bytes_skipped

Then on the next update

> [shuffle]
> +static void __tg_update_skipped(struct throtl_grp *tg, bool rw)
> +{
> +	unsigned long jiffy_elapsed = jiffies - tg->slice_start[rw];
> +	u64 bps_limit = tg_bps_limit(tg, rw);
> +	u32 iops_limit = tg_iops_limit(tg, rw);
> +
> +	if (bps_limit != U64_MAX)
> +		tg->bytes_skipped[rw] +=
> +			calculate_bytes_allowed(bps_limit, jiffy_elapsed) -
> +			tg->bytes_disp[rw];
> +	if (iops_limit != UINT_MAX)
> +		tg->io_skipped[rw] +=
> +			calculate_io_allowed(iops_limit, jiffy_elapsed) -
> +			tg->io_disp[rw];
> +}

the difference(s) here could be negative. bytes_skipped should be
reduced to account for the additionally dispatched bio.
This is all unsigned so negative numbers underflow, however, we add them
again to the unsigned, so thanks to modular arithmetics the result is
correctly updated bytes_skipped.

Maybe add a comment about this (unsigned) intention?

(But can this happen? The discussed bio would have to outrun another bio
(the one which defined the current slice_end) but since blk-throttle
uses queues (FIFO) everywhere this shouldn't really happen. But it's
good to know this works as intended.)

This patch can have
Reviewed-by: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com>


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH -next v5 4/8] blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates

[Yu Kuai]

Hi,

在 2022/06/23 1:26, Michal Koutný 写道:
> (Apologies for taking so long before answering.)
> 
> On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 02:43:26PM +0800, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> wrote:
>> Some simple test:
>> 1)
>> cd /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio/
>> echo $$ > cgroup.procs
>> echo "8:0 2048" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
>> {
>>          sleep 2
>>          echo "8:0 1024" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
>> } &
>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=8k count=1 oflag=direct
>>
>> 2)
>> cd /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio/
>> echo $$ > cgroup.procs
>> echo "8:0 1024" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
>> {
>>          sleep 4
>>          echo "8:0 2048" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
>> } &
>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=8k count=1 oflag=direct
>>
>> test results: io finish time
>> 	before this patch	with this patch
>> 1)	10s			6s
>> 2)	8s			6s
> 
> I agree these are consistent and correct times.
> 
> And the new implementation won't make it worse (in terms of delaying a
> bio) than configuring minimal limits from the beginning, AFACT.
> 
>> @@ -801,7 +836,8 @@ static bool tg_with_in_iops_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
>>   
>>   	/* Round up to the next throttle slice, wait time must be nonzero */
>>   	jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed + 1, tg->td->throtl_slice);
>> -	io_allowed = calculate_io_allowed(iops_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd);
>> +	io_allowed = calculate_io_allowed(iops_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd) +
>> +		     tg->io_skipped[rw];
>>   	if (tg->io_disp[rw] + 1 <= io_allowed) {
>>   		if (wait)
>>   			*wait = 0;
>> @@ -838,7 +874,8 @@ static bool tg_with_in_bps_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
>>   		jiffy_elapsed_rnd = tg->td->throtl_slice;
>>   
>>   	jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed_rnd, tg->td->throtl_slice);
>> -	bytes_allowed = calculate_bytes_allowed(bps_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd);
>> +	bytes_allowed = calculate_bytes_allowed(bps_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd) +
>> +			tg->bytes_skipped[rw];
>>   	if (tg->bytes_disp[rw] + bio_size <= bytes_allowed) {
>>   		if (wait)
>>   			*wait = 0;
>>
> 
> Here we may allow to dispatch a bio above current slice's
> calculate_bytes_allowed() if bytes_skipped is already >0.

Hi, I don't expect that to happen. For example, if a bio is still
throttled, then old slice is keeped with proper 'bytes_skipped',
then new wait time is caculated based on (bio_size - bytes_skipped).

After the bio is dispatched(I assum that other bios can't preempt),
if new slice is started, then 'bytes_skipped' is cleared, there should
be no problem; If old slice is extended, note that we only wait
for 'bio_size - bytes_skipped' bytes, while 'bio_size' bytes is added
to 'tg->bytes_disp'. I think this will make sure new bio won't be
dispatched above slice.

What do you think?
> 
> bytes_disp + bio_size <= calculate_bytes_allowed() + bytes_skipped
> 
> Then on the next update
> 
>> [shuffle]
>> +static void __tg_update_skipped(struct throtl_grp *tg, bool rw)
>> +{
>> +	unsigned long jiffy_elapsed = jiffies - tg->slice_start[rw];
>> +	u64 bps_limit = tg_bps_limit(tg, rw);
>> +	u32 iops_limit = tg_iops_limit(tg, rw);
>> +
>> +	if (bps_limit != U64_MAX)
>> +		tg->bytes_skipped[rw] +=
>> +			calculate_bytes_allowed(bps_limit, jiffy_elapsed) -
>> +			tg->bytes_disp[rw];
>> +	if (iops_limit != UINT_MAX)
>> +		tg->io_skipped[rw] +=
>> +			calculate_io_allowed(iops_limit, jiffy_elapsed) -
>> +			tg->io_disp[rw];
>> +}
> 
> the difference(s) here could be negative. bytes_skipped should be
> reduced to account for the additionally dispatched bio.
> This is all unsigned so negative numbers underflow, however, we add them
> again to the unsigned, so thanks to modular arithmetics the result is
> correctly updated bytes_skipped.
> 
> Maybe add a comment about this (unsigned) intention?

Of course I can do that.
> 
> (But can this happen? The discussed bio would have to outrun another bio
> (the one which defined the current slice_end) but since blk-throttle
> uses queues (FIFO) everywhere this shouldn't really happen. But it's
> good to know this works as intended.)
I can also mention that in comment.
> 
> This patch can have
> Reviewed-by: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com>
> 

Thanks for the review!
Kuai

Re: [PATCH -next v5 4/8] blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates

[Yu Kuai]

Hi,

在 2022/06/23 1:26, Michal Koutný 写道:
> (Apologies for taking so long before answering.)
> 
> On Sat, May 28, 2022 at 02:43:26PM +0800, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> wrote:
>> Some simple test:
>> 1)
>> cd /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio/
>> echo $$ > cgroup.procs
>> echo "8:0 2048" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
>> {
>>          sleep 2
>>          echo "8:0 1024" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
>> } &
>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=8k count=1 oflag=direct
>>
>> 2)
>> cd /sys/fs/cgroup/blkio/
>> echo $$ > cgroup.procs
>> echo "8:0 1024" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
>> {
>>          sleep 4
>>          echo "8:0 2048" > blkio.throttle.write_bps_device
>> } &
>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/sda bs=8k count=1 oflag=direct
>>
>> test results: io finish time
>> 	before this patch	with this patch
>> 1)	10s			6s
>> 2)	8s			6s
> 
> I agree these are consistent and correct times.
> 
> And the new implementation won't make it worse (in terms of delaying a
> bio) than configuring minimal limits from the beginning, AFACT.
> 
>> @@ -801,7 +836,8 @@ static bool tg_with_in_iops_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
>>   
>>   	/* Round up to the next throttle slice, wait time must be nonzero */
>>   	jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed + 1, tg->td->throtl_slice);
>> -	io_allowed = calculate_io_allowed(iops_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd);
>> +	io_allowed = calculate_io_allowed(iops_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd) +
>> +		     tg->io_skipped[rw];
>>   	if (tg->io_disp[rw] + 1 <= io_allowed) {
>>   		if (wait)
>>   			*wait = 0;
>> @@ -838,7 +874,8 @@ static bool tg_with_in_bps_limit(struct throtl_grp *tg, struct bio *bio,
>>   		jiffy_elapsed_rnd = tg->td->throtl_slice;
>>   
>>   	jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed_rnd, tg->td->throtl_slice);
>> -	bytes_allowed = calculate_bytes_allowed(bps_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd);
>> +	bytes_allowed = calculate_bytes_allowed(bps_limit, jiffy_elapsed_rnd) +
>> +			tg->bytes_skipped[rw];
>>   	if (tg->bytes_disp[rw] + bio_size <= bytes_allowed) {
>>   		if (wait)
>>   			*wait = 0;
>>
> 
> Here we may allow to dispatch a bio above current slice's
> calculate_bytes_allowed() if bytes_skipped is already >0.

Hi, I don't expect that to happen. For example, if a bio is still
throttled, then old slice is keeped with proper 'bytes_skipped',
then new wait time is caculated based on (bio_size - bytes_skipped).

After the bio is dispatched(I assum that other bios can't preempt),
if new slice is started, then 'bytes_skipped' is cleared, there should
be no problem; If old slice is extended, note that we only wait
for 'bio_size - bytes_skipped' bytes, while 'bio_size' bytes is added
to 'tg->bytes_disp'. I think this will make sure new bio won't be
dispatched above slice.

What do you think?
> 
> bytes_disp + bio_size <= calculate_bytes_allowed() + bytes_skipped
> 
> Then on the next update
> 
>> [shuffle]
>> +static void __tg_update_skipped(struct throtl_grp *tg, bool rw)
>> +{
>> +	unsigned long jiffy_elapsed = jiffies - tg->slice_start[rw];
>> +	u64 bps_limit = tg_bps_limit(tg, rw);
>> +	u32 iops_limit = tg_iops_limit(tg, rw);
>> +
>> +	if (bps_limit != U64_MAX)
>> +		tg->bytes_skipped[rw] +=
>> +			calculate_bytes_allowed(bps_limit, jiffy_elapsed) -
>> +			tg->bytes_disp[rw];
>> +	if (iops_limit != UINT_MAX)
>> +		tg->io_skipped[rw] +=
>> +			calculate_io_allowed(iops_limit, jiffy_elapsed) -
>> +			tg->io_disp[rw];
>> +}
> 
> the difference(s) here could be negative. bytes_skipped should be
> reduced to account for the additionally dispatched bio.
> This is all unsigned so negative numbers underflow, however, we add them
> again to the unsigned, so thanks to modular arithmetics the result is
> correctly updated bytes_skipped.
> 
> Maybe add a comment about this (unsigned) intention?

Of course I can do that.
> 
> (But can this happen? The discussed bio would have to outrun another bio
> (the one which defined the current slice_end) but since blk-throttle
> uses queues (FIFO) everywhere this shouldn't really happen. But it's
> good to know this works as intended.)
I can also mention that in comment.
> 
> This patch can have
> Reviewed-by: Michal Koutný <mkoutny@suse.com>
> 

Thanks for the review!
Kuai

Re: [PATCH -next v5 4/8] blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates

[Michal Koutný]

On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 08:27:11PM +0800, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> wrote:
> > Here we may allow to dispatch a bio above current slice's
> > calculate_bytes_allowed() if bytes_skipped is already >0.
> 
> Hi, I don't expect that to happen. For example, if a bio is still
> throttled, then old slice is keeped with proper 'bytes_skipped',
> then new wait time is caculated based on (bio_size - bytes_skipped).
> 
> After the bio is dispatched(I assum that other bios can't preempt),

With this assumptions it adds up as you write. I believe we're in
agreement.

It's the same assumption I made below (FIFO everywhere, i.e. no
reordering). So the discussed difference shouldn't really be negative
(and if the assumption didn't hold, so the modular arithmetic yields
corerct bytes_skipped value).

Michal

Re: [PATCH -next v5 4/8] blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates

[Yu Kuai]

在 2022/06/24 0:26, Michal Koutný 写道:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 08:27:11PM +0800, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> wrote:
>>> Here we may allow to dispatch a bio above current slice's
>>> calculate_bytes_allowed() if bytes_skipped is already >0.
>>
>> Hi, I don't expect that to happen. For example, if a bio is still
>> throttled, then old slice is keeped with proper 'bytes_skipped',
>> then new wait time is caculated based on (bio_size - bytes_skipped).
>>
>> After the bio is dispatched(I assum that other bios can't preempt),
> 
> With this assumptions it adds up as you write. I believe we're in
> agreement.
> 
> It's the same assumption I made below (FIFO everywhere, i.e. no
> reordering). So the discussed difference shouldn't really be negative
> (and if the assumption didn't hold, so the modular arithmetic yields
> corerct bytes_skipped value).
Yes, nice that we're in aggreement.

I'll wait to see if Tejun has any suggestions.

Thanks,
Kuai
> 
> Michal
> .
> 

Re: [PATCH -next v5 4/8] blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates

[Yu Kuai]

在 2022/06/24 0:26, Michal Koutný 写道:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 08:27:11PM +0800, Yu Kuai <yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> Here we may allow to dispatch a bio above current slice's
>>> calculate_bytes_allowed() if bytes_skipped is already >0.
>>
>> Hi, I don't expect that to happen. For example, if a bio is still
>> throttled, then old slice is keeped with proper 'bytes_skipped',
>> then new wait time is caculated based on (bio_size - bytes_skipped).
>>
>> After the bio is dispatched(I assum that other bios can't preempt),
> 
> With this assumptions it adds up as you write. I believe we're in
> agreement.
> 
> It's the same assumption I made below (FIFO everywhere, i.e. no
> reordering). So the discussed difference shouldn't really be negative
> (and if the assumption didn't hold, so the modular arithmetic yields
> corerct bytes_skipped value).
Yes, nice that we're in aggreement.

I'll wait to see if Tejun has any suggestions.

Thanks,
Kuai
> 
> Michal
> .
> 

Re: [PATCH -next v5 4/8] blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates

[Jens Axboe]

On 6/25/22 2:36 AM, Yu Kuai wrote:
> ? 2022/06/24 0:26, Michal Koutn? ??:
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 08:27:11PM +0800, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>> Here we may allow to dispatch a bio above current slice's
>>>> calculate_bytes_allowed() if bytes_skipped is already >0.
>>>
>>> Hi, I don't expect that to happen. For example, if a bio is still
>>> throttled, then old slice is keeped with proper 'bytes_skipped',
>>> then new wait time is caculated based on (bio_size - bytes_skipped).
>>>
>>> After the bio is dispatched(I assum that other bios can't preempt),
>>
>> With this assumptions it adds up as you write. I believe we're in
>> agreement.
>>
>> It's the same assumption I made below (FIFO everywhere, i.e. no
>> reordering). So the discussed difference shouldn't really be negative
>> (and if the assumption didn't hold, so the modular arithmetic yields
>> corerct bytes_skipped value).
> Yes, nice that we're in aggreement.
> 
> I'll wait to see if Tejun has any suggestions.

I flushed more emails from spam again. Please stop using the buggy
huawei address until this gets resolved, your patches are getting lost
left and right and I don't have time to go hunting for emails.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [PATCH -next v5 4/8] blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates

[Jens Axboe]

On 6/25/22 2:36 AM, Yu Kuai wrote:
> ? 2022/06/24 0:26, Michal Koutn? ??:
>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 08:27:11PM +0800, Yu Kuai <yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>> Here we may allow to dispatch a bio above current slice's
>>>> calculate_bytes_allowed() if bytes_skipped is already >0.
>>>
>>> Hi, I don't expect that to happen. For example, if a bio is still
>>> throttled, then old slice is keeped with proper 'bytes_skipped',
>>> then new wait time is caculated based on (bio_size - bytes_skipped).
>>>
>>> After the bio is dispatched(I assum that other bios can't preempt),
>>
>> With this assumptions it adds up as you write. I believe we're in
>> agreement.
>>
>> It's the same assumption I made below (FIFO everywhere, i.e. no
>> reordering). So the discussed difference shouldn't really be negative
>> (and if the assumption didn't hold, so the modular arithmetic yields
>> corerct bytes_skipped value).
> Yes, nice that we're in aggreement.
> 
> I'll wait to see if Tejun has any suggestions.

I flushed more emails from spam again. Please stop using the buggy
huawei address until this gets resolved, your patches are getting lost
left and right and I don't have time to go hunting for emails.

-- 
Jens Axboe

Re: [PATCH -next v5 4/8] blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates

[Yu Kuai]

在 2022/06/26 0:41, Jens Axboe 写道:
> On 6/25/22 2:36 AM, Yu Kuai wrote:
>> ? 2022/06/24 0:26, Michal Koutn? ??:
>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 08:27:11PM +0800, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>> Here we may allow to dispatch a bio above current slice's
>>>>> calculate_bytes_allowed() if bytes_skipped is already >0.
>>>>
>>>> Hi, I don't expect that to happen. For example, if a bio is still
>>>> throttled, then old slice is keeped with proper 'bytes_skipped',
>>>> then new wait time is caculated based on (bio_size - bytes_skipped).
>>>>
>>>> After the bio is dispatched(I assum that other bios can't preempt),
>>>
>>> With this assumptions it adds up as you write. I believe we're in
>>> agreement.
>>>
>>> It's the same assumption I made below (FIFO everywhere, i.e. no
>>> reordering). So the discussed difference shouldn't really be negative
>>> (and if the assumption didn't hold, so the modular arithmetic yields
>>> corerct bytes_skipped value).
>> Yes, nice that we're in aggreement.
>>
>> I'll wait to see if Tejun has any suggestions.
> 
> I flushed more emails from spam again. Please stop using the buggy
> huawei address until this gets resolved, your patches are getting lost
> left and right and I don't have time to go hunting for emails.
> 

My apologize for that, I'm quite annoied that our IT still can't solve
this. I'll stop sending new emails with this address for now..

Thanks,
Kuai

Re: [PATCH -next v5 4/8] blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates

[Yu Kuai]

在 2022/06/26 0:41, Jens Axboe 写道:
> On 6/25/22 2:36 AM, Yu Kuai wrote:
>> ? 2022/06/24 0:26, Michal Koutn? ??:
>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 08:27:11PM +0800, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>> Here we may allow to dispatch a bio above current slice's
>>>>> calculate_bytes_allowed() if bytes_skipped is already >0.
>>>>
>>>> Hi, I don't expect that to happen. For example, if a bio is still
>>>> throttled, then old slice is keeped with proper 'bytes_skipped',
>>>> then new wait time is caculated based on (bio_size - bytes_skipped).
>>>>
>>>> After the bio is dispatched(I assum that other bios can't preempt),
>>>
>>> With this assumptions it adds up as you write. I believe we're in
>>> agreement.
>>>
>>> It's the same assumption I made below (FIFO everywhere, i.e. no
>>> reordering). So the discussed difference shouldn't really be negative
>>> (and if the assumption didn't hold, so the modular arithmetic yields
>>> corerct bytes_skipped value).
>> Yes, nice that we're in aggreement.
>>
>> I'll wait to see if Tejun has any suggestions.
> 
> I flushed more emails from spam again. Please stop using the buggy
> huawei address until this gets resolved, your patches are getting lost
> left and right and I don't have time to go hunting for emails.
> 

My apologize for that, I'm quite annoied that our IT still can't solve
this. I'll stop sending new emails with this address for now..

Thanks,
Kuai

Re: [PATCH -next v5 4/8] blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates

[Yu Kuai]

在 2022/06/26 0:41, Jens Axboe 写道:
> On 6/25/22 2:36 AM, Yu Kuai wrote:
>> ? 2022/06/24 0:26, Michal Koutn? ??:
>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 08:27:11PM +0800, Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com> wrote:
>>>>> Here we may allow to dispatch a bio above current slice's
>>>>> calculate_bytes_allowed() if bytes_skipped is already >0.
>>>>
>>>> Hi, I don't expect that to happen. For example, if a bio is still
>>>> throttled, then old slice is keeped with proper 'bytes_skipped',
>>>> then new wait time is caculated based on (bio_size - bytes_skipped).
>>>>
>>>> After the bio is dispatched(I assum that other bios can't preempt),
>>>
>>> With this assumptions it adds up as you write. I believe we're in
>>> agreement.
>>>
>>> It's the same assumption I made below (FIFO everywhere, i.e. no
>>> reordering). So the discussed difference shouldn't really be negative
>>> (and if the assumption didn't hold, so the modular arithmetic yields
>>> corerct bytes_skipped value).
>> Yes, nice that we're in aggreement.
>>
>> I'll wait to see if Tejun has any suggestions.
> 
> I flushed more emails from spam again. Please stop using the buggy
> huawei address until this gets resolved, your patches are getting lost
> left and right and I don't have time to go hunting for emails.
> 

Hi, Jens

Can you please take a look if this patchset is ok?

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220701093441.885741-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com/

This is sent by huaweicloud.com（DMARC record is empty).

Thanks,
Kuai

Re: [PATCH -next v5 4/8] blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates

[Yu Kuai]

在 2022/06/26 0:41, Jens Axboe 写道:
> On 6/25/22 2:36 AM, Yu Kuai wrote:
>> ? 2022/06/24 0:26, Michal Koutn? ??:
>>> On Thu, Jun 23, 2022 at 08:27:11PM +0800, Yu Kuai <yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>>>> Here we may allow to dispatch a bio above current slice's
>>>>> calculate_bytes_allowed() if bytes_skipped is already >0.
>>>>
>>>> Hi, I don't expect that to happen. For example, if a bio is still
>>>> throttled, then old slice is keeped with proper 'bytes_skipped',
>>>> then new wait time is caculated based on (bio_size - bytes_skipped).
>>>>
>>>> After the bio is dispatched(I assum that other bios can't preempt),
>>>
>>> With this assumptions it adds up as you write. I believe we're in
>>> agreement.
>>>
>>> It's the same assumption I made below (FIFO everywhere, i.e. no
>>> reordering). So the discussed difference shouldn't really be negative
>>> (and if the assumption didn't hold, so the modular arithmetic yields
>>> corerct bytes_skipped value).
>> Yes, nice that we're in aggreement.
>>
>> I'll wait to see if Tejun has any suggestions.
> 
> I flushed more emails from spam again. Please stop using the buggy
> huawei address until this gets resolved, your patches are getting lost
> left and right and I don't have time to go hunting for emails.
> 

Hi, Jens

Can you please take a look if this patchset is ok?

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220701093441.885741-1-yukuai1-XF6JlduFytWkHkcT6e4Xnw@public.gmane.org/

This is sent by huaweicloud.com（DMARC record is empty).

Thanks,
Kuai

[PATCH -next v5 5/8] blk-throttle: use 'READ/WRITE' instead of '0/1'

[Yu Kuai]

Make the code easier to read, like everywhere else.

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
---
 block/blk-throttle.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index 94fd73e8b2d9..454a360f42e8 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -329,8 +329,8 @@ static struct bio *throtl_pop_queued(struct list_head *queued,
 /* init a service_queue, assumes the caller zeroed it */
 static void throtl_service_queue_init(struct throtl_service_queue *sq)
 {
-	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sq->queued[0]);
-	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sq->queued[1]);
+	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sq->queued[READ]);
+	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sq->queued[WRITE]);
 	sq->pending_tree = RB_ROOT_CACHED;
 	timer_setup(&sq->pending_timer, throtl_pending_timer_fn, 0);
 }
@@ -1150,7 +1150,7 @@ static int throtl_select_dispatch(struct throtl_service_queue *parent_sq)
 		nr_disp += throtl_dispatch_tg(tg);
 
 		sq = &tg->service_queue;
-		if (sq->nr_queued[0] || sq->nr_queued[1])
+		if (sq->nr_queued[READ] || sq->nr_queued[WRITE])
 			tg_update_disptime(tg);
 
 		if (nr_disp >= THROTL_QUANTUM)
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH -next v5 5/8] blk-throttle: use 'READ/WRITE' instead of '0/1'

[Yu Kuai]

Make the code easier to read, like everywhere else.

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
---
 block/blk-throttle.c | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index 94fd73e8b2d9..454a360f42e8 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -329,8 +329,8 @@ static struct bio *throtl_pop_queued(struct list_head *queued,
 /* init a service_queue, assumes the caller zeroed it */
 static void throtl_service_queue_init(struct throtl_service_queue *sq)
 {
-	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sq->queued[0]);
-	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sq->queued[1]);
+	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sq->queued[READ]);
+	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sq->queued[WRITE]);
 	sq->pending_tree = RB_ROOT_CACHED;
 	timer_setup(&sq->pending_timer, throtl_pending_timer_fn, 0);
 }
@@ -1150,7 +1150,7 @@ static int throtl_select_dispatch(struct throtl_service_queue *parent_sq)
 		nr_disp += throtl_dispatch_tg(tg);
 
 		sq = &tg->service_queue;
-		if (sq->nr_queued[0] || sq->nr_queued[1])
+		if (sq->nr_queued[READ] || sq->nr_queued[WRITE])
 			tg_update_disptime(tg);
 
 		if (nr_disp >= THROTL_QUANTUM)
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH -next v5 6/8] blk-throttle: calling throtl_dequeue/enqueue_tg in pairs

[Yu Kuai]

It's a litter weird to call throtl_dequeue_tg() unconditionally in
throtl_select_dispatch(), since it will be called in
tg_update_disptime() again if some bio is still throttled.

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
---
 block/blk-throttle.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index 454a360f42e8..e6ae86d284b9 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -1145,13 +1145,13 @@ static int throtl_select_dispatch(struct throtl_service_queue *parent_sq)
 		if (time_before(jiffies, tg->disptime))
 			break;
 
-		throtl_dequeue_tg(tg);
-
 		nr_disp += throtl_dispatch_tg(tg);
 
 		sq = &tg->service_queue;
 		if (sq->nr_queued[READ] || sq->nr_queued[WRITE])
 			tg_update_disptime(tg);
+		else
+			throtl_dequeue_tg(tg);
 
 		if (nr_disp >= THROTL_QUANTUM)
 			break;
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH -next v5 6/8] blk-throttle: calling throtl_dequeue/enqueue_tg in pairs

[Yu Kuai]

It's a litter weird to call throtl_dequeue_tg() unconditionally in
throtl_select_dispatch(), since it will be called in
tg_update_disptime() again if some bio is still throttled.

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
---
 block/blk-throttle.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index 454a360f42e8..e6ae86d284b9 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -1145,13 +1145,13 @@ static int throtl_select_dispatch(struct throtl_service_queue *parent_sq)
 		if (time_before(jiffies, tg->disptime))
 			break;
 
-		throtl_dequeue_tg(tg);
-
 		nr_disp += throtl_dispatch_tg(tg);
 
 		sq = &tg->service_queue;
 		if (sq->nr_queued[READ] || sq->nr_queued[WRITE])
 			tg_update_disptime(tg);
+		else
+			throtl_dequeue_tg(tg);
 
 		if (nr_disp >= THROTL_QUANTUM)
 			break;
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH -next v5 7/8] blk-throttle: cleanup tg_update_disptime()

[Yu Kuai]

th_update_disptime() only need to adjust postion for 'tg' in
'parent_sq', there is no need to call throtl_enqueue/dequeue_tg().

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
---
 block/blk-throttle.c | 11 +++++++----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index e6ae86d284b9..297ce54ceaa3 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -520,7 +520,6 @@ static void throtl_rb_erase(struct rb_node *n,
 {
 	rb_erase_cached(n, &parent_sq->pending_tree);
 	RB_CLEAR_NODE(n);
-	--parent_sq->nr_pending;
 }
 
 static void update_min_dispatch_time(struct throtl_service_queue *parent_sq)
@@ -572,7 +571,11 @@ static void throtl_enqueue_tg(struct throtl_grp *tg)
 static void throtl_dequeue_tg(struct throtl_grp *tg)
 {
 	if (tg->flags & THROTL_TG_PENDING) {
-		throtl_rb_erase(&tg->rb_node, tg->service_queue.parent_sq);
+		struct throtl_service_queue *parent_sq =
+			tg->service_queue.parent_sq;
+
+		throtl_rb_erase(&tg->rb_node, parent_sq);
+		--parent_sq->nr_pending;
 		tg->flags &= ~THROTL_TG_PENDING;
 	}
 }
@@ -1034,9 +1037,9 @@ static void tg_update_disptime(struct throtl_grp *tg)
 	disptime = jiffies + min_wait;
 
 	/* Update dispatch time */
-	throtl_dequeue_tg(tg);
+	throtl_rb_erase(&tg->rb_node, tg->service_queue.parent_sq);
 	tg->disptime = disptime;
-	throtl_enqueue_tg(tg);
+	tg_service_queue_add(tg);
 
 	/* see throtl_add_bio_tg() */
 	tg->flags &= ~THROTL_TG_WAS_EMPTY;
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH -next v5 7/8] blk-throttle: cleanup tg_update_disptime()

[Yu Kuai]

th_update_disptime() only need to adjust postion for 'tg' in
'parent_sq', there is no need to call throtl_enqueue/dequeue_tg().

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
---
 block/blk-throttle.c | 11 +++++++----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index e6ae86d284b9..297ce54ceaa3 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -520,7 +520,6 @@ static void throtl_rb_erase(struct rb_node *n,
 {
 	rb_erase_cached(n, &parent_sq->pending_tree);
 	RB_CLEAR_NODE(n);
-	--parent_sq->nr_pending;
 }
 
 static void update_min_dispatch_time(struct throtl_service_queue *parent_sq)
@@ -572,7 +571,11 @@ static void throtl_enqueue_tg(struct throtl_grp *tg)
 static void throtl_dequeue_tg(struct throtl_grp *tg)
 {
 	if (tg->flags & THROTL_TG_PENDING) {
-		throtl_rb_erase(&tg->rb_node, tg->service_queue.parent_sq);
+		struct throtl_service_queue *parent_sq =
+			tg->service_queue.parent_sq;
+
+		throtl_rb_erase(&tg->rb_node, parent_sq);
+		--parent_sq->nr_pending;
 		tg->flags &= ~THROTL_TG_PENDING;
 	}
 }
@@ -1034,9 +1037,9 @@ static void tg_update_disptime(struct throtl_grp *tg)
 	disptime = jiffies + min_wait;
 
 	/* Update dispatch time */
-	throtl_dequeue_tg(tg);
+	throtl_rb_erase(&tg->rb_node, tg->service_queue.parent_sq);
 	tg->disptime = disptime;
-	throtl_enqueue_tg(tg);
+	tg_service_queue_add(tg);
 
 	/* see throtl_add_bio_tg() */
 	tg->flags &= ~THROTL_TG_WAS_EMPTY;
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH -next v5 8/8] blk-throttle: clean up flag 'THROTL_TG_PENDING'

[Yu Kuai]

All related operations are inside 'queue_lock', there is no need to use
the flag, we only need to make sure throtl_enqueue_tg() is called when
the first bio is throttled, and throtl_dequeue_tg() is called when the
last throttled bio is dispatched.

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
---
 block/blk-throttle.c | 22 ++++++++--------------
 block/blk-throttle.h |  7 +++----
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index 297ce54ceaa3..fe7f01c61ba8 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -561,23 +561,16 @@ static void tg_service_queue_add(struct throtl_grp *tg)
 
 static void throtl_enqueue_tg(struct throtl_grp *tg)
 {
-	if (!(tg->flags & THROTL_TG_PENDING)) {
-		tg_service_queue_add(tg);
-		tg->flags |= THROTL_TG_PENDING;
-		tg->service_queue.parent_sq->nr_pending++;
-	}
+	tg_service_queue_add(tg);
+	tg->service_queue.parent_sq->nr_pending++;
 }
 
 static void throtl_dequeue_tg(struct throtl_grp *tg)
 {
-	if (tg->flags & THROTL_TG_PENDING) {
-		struct throtl_service_queue *parent_sq =
-			tg->service_queue.parent_sq;
+	struct throtl_service_queue *parent_sq = tg->service_queue.parent_sq;
 
-		throtl_rb_erase(&tg->rb_node, parent_sq);
-		--parent_sq->nr_pending;
-		tg->flags &= ~THROTL_TG_PENDING;
-	}
+	throtl_rb_erase(&tg->rb_node, parent_sq);
+	--parent_sq->nr_pending;
 }
 
 /* Call with queue lock held */
@@ -1015,8 +1008,9 @@ static void throtl_add_bio_tg(struct bio *bio, struct throtl_qnode *qn,
 
 	throtl_qnode_add_bio(bio, qn, &sq->queued[rw]);
 
+	if (!sq->nr_queued[READ] && !sq->nr_queued[WRITE])
+		throtl_enqueue_tg(tg);
 	sq->nr_queued[rw]++;
-	throtl_enqueue_tg(tg);
 }
 
 static void tg_update_disptime(struct throtl_grp *tg)
@@ -1371,7 +1365,7 @@ static void tg_conf_updated(struct throtl_grp *tg, bool global)
 	throtl_start_new_slice(tg, READ, false);
 	throtl_start_new_slice(tg, WRITE, false);
 
-	if (tg->flags & THROTL_TG_PENDING) {
+	if (sq->nr_queued[READ] || sq->nr_queued[WRITE]) {
 		tg_update_disptime(tg);
 		throtl_schedule_next_dispatch(sq->parent_sq, true);
 	}
diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.h b/block/blk-throttle.h
index b8178e6b4d30..f68b95999f83 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.h
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.h
@@ -53,10 +53,9 @@ struct throtl_service_queue {
 };
 
 enum tg_state_flags {
-	THROTL_TG_PENDING	= 1 << 0,	/* on parent's pending tree */
-	THROTL_TG_WAS_EMPTY	= 1 << 1,	/* bio_lists[] became non-empty */
-	THROTL_TG_HAS_IOPS_LIMIT = 1 << 2,	/* tg has iops limit */
-	THROTL_TG_CANCELING	= 1 << 3,	/* starts to cancel bio */
+	THROTL_TG_WAS_EMPTY	= 1 << 0,	/* bio_lists[] became non-empty */
+	THROTL_TG_HAS_IOPS_LIMIT = 1 << 1,	/* tg has iops limit */
+	THROTL_TG_CANCELING	= 1 << 2,	/* starts to cancel bio */
 };
 
 enum {
-- 
2.31.1

[PATCH -next v5 8/8] blk-throttle: clean up flag 'THROTL_TG_PENDING'

[Yu Kuai]

All related operations are inside 'queue_lock', there is no need to use
the flag, we only need to make sure throtl_enqueue_tg() is called when
the first bio is throttled, and throtl_dequeue_tg() is called when the
last throttled bio is dispatched.

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
---
 block/blk-throttle.c | 22 ++++++++--------------
 block/blk-throttle.h |  7 +++----
 2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index 297ce54ceaa3..fe7f01c61ba8 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -561,23 +561,16 @@ static void tg_service_queue_add(struct throtl_grp *tg)
 
 static void throtl_enqueue_tg(struct throtl_grp *tg)
 {
-	if (!(tg->flags & THROTL_TG_PENDING)) {
-		tg_service_queue_add(tg);
-		tg->flags |= THROTL_TG_PENDING;
-		tg->service_queue.parent_sq->nr_pending++;
-	}
+	tg_service_queue_add(tg);
+	tg->service_queue.parent_sq->nr_pending++;
 }
 
 static void throtl_dequeue_tg(struct throtl_grp *tg)
 {
-	if (tg->flags & THROTL_TG_PENDING) {
-		struct throtl_service_queue *parent_sq =
-			tg->service_queue.parent_sq;
+	struct throtl_service_queue *parent_sq = tg->service_queue.parent_sq;
 
-		throtl_rb_erase(&tg->rb_node, parent_sq);
-		--parent_sq->nr_pending;
-		tg->flags &= ~THROTL_TG_PENDING;
-	}
+	throtl_rb_erase(&tg->rb_node, parent_sq);
+	--parent_sq->nr_pending;
 }
 
 /* Call with queue lock held */
@@ -1015,8 +1008,9 @@ static void throtl_add_bio_tg(struct bio *bio, struct throtl_qnode *qn,
 
 	throtl_qnode_add_bio(bio, qn, &sq->queued[rw]);
 
+	if (!sq->nr_queued[READ] && !sq->nr_queued[WRITE])
+		throtl_enqueue_tg(tg);
 	sq->nr_queued[rw]++;
-	throtl_enqueue_tg(tg);
 }
 
 static void tg_update_disptime(struct throtl_grp *tg)
@@ -1371,7 +1365,7 @@ static void tg_conf_updated(struct throtl_grp *tg, bool global)
 	throtl_start_new_slice(tg, READ, false);
 	throtl_start_new_slice(tg, WRITE, false);
 
-	if (tg->flags & THROTL_TG_PENDING) {
+	if (sq->nr_queued[READ] || sq->nr_queued[WRITE]) {
 		tg_update_disptime(tg);
 		throtl_schedule_next_dispatch(sq->parent_sq, true);
 	}
diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.h b/block/blk-throttle.h
index b8178e6b4d30..f68b95999f83 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.h
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.h
@@ -53,10 +53,9 @@ struct throtl_service_queue {
 };
 
 enum tg_state_flags {
-	THROTL_TG_PENDING	= 1 << 0,	/* on parent's pending tree */
-	THROTL_TG_WAS_EMPTY	= 1 << 1,	/* bio_lists[] became non-empty */
-	THROTL_TG_HAS_IOPS_LIMIT = 1 << 2,	/* tg has iops limit */
-	THROTL_TG_CANCELING	= 1 << 3,	/* starts to cancel bio */
+	THROTL_TG_WAS_EMPTY	= 1 << 0,	/* bio_lists[] became non-empty */
+	THROTL_TG_HAS_IOPS_LIMIT = 1 << 1,	/* tg has iops limit */
+	THROTL_TG_CANCELING	= 1 << 2,	/* starts to cancel bio */
 };
 
 enum {
-- 
2.31.1

Re: [PATCH -next v5 0/8] bugfix and cleanup for blk-throttle

[Yu Kuai]

在 2022/05/28 14:43, Yu Kuai 写道:
> Changes in v5:
>   - add comments in patch 4
>   - clear bytes/io_skipped in throtl_start_new_slice_with_credit() in
>   patch 4
>   - and cleanup patches 5-8
> Changes in v4:
>   - add reviewed-by tag for patch 1
>   - add patch 2,3
>   - use a different way to fix io hung in patch 4
> Changes in v3:
>   - fix a check in patch 1
>   - fix link err in patch 2 on 32-bit platform
>   - handle overflow in patch 2
> Changes in v2:
>   - use a new solution suggested by Ming
>   - change the title of patch 1
>   - add patch 2
> 
> Patch 1 fix that blk-throttle can't work if multiple bios are throttle,
> Patch 2 fix overflow while calculating wait time
> Patch 3,4 fix io hung due to configuration updates.
> Patch 5-8 are cleanup patches, there are no functional changes, just
> some places that I think can be optimized during code review.

friendly ping ...
> 
> Previous version:
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220517134909.2910251-1-yukuai3@huawei.com/
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220518072751.1188163-1-yukuai3@huawei.com/
> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220519085811.879097-1-yukuai3@huawei.com/
> v4: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220523082633.2324980-1-yukuai3@huawei.com/
> 
> Yu Kuai (8):
>    blk-throttle: fix that io throttle can only work for single bio
>    blk-throttle: prevent overflow while calculating wait time
>    blk-throttle: factor out code to calculate ios/bytes_allowed
>    blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates
>    blk-throttle: use 'READ/WRITE' instead of '0/1'
>    blk-throttle: calling throtl_dequeue/enqueue_tg in pairs
>    blk-throttle: cleanup tg_update_disptime()
>    blk-throttle: clean up flag 'THROTL_TG_PENDING'
> 
>   block/blk-throttle.c | 158 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>   block/blk-throttle.h |  16 +++--
>   2 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
> 

Re: [PATCH -next v5 0/8] bugfix and cleanup for blk-throttle

[Yu Kuai]

ÔÚ 2022/05/28 14:43, Yu Kuai дµÀ:
> Changes in v5:
>   - add comments in patch 4
>   - clear bytes/io_skipped in throtl_start_new_slice_with_credit() in
>   patch 4
>   - and cleanup patches 5-8
> Changes in v4:
>   - add reviewed-by tag for patch 1
>   - add patch 2,3
>   - use a different way to fix io hung in patch 4
> Changes in v3:
>   - fix a check in patch 1
>   - fix link err in patch 2 on 32-bit platform
>   - handle overflow in patch 2
> Changes in v2:
>   - use a new solution suggested by Ming
>   - change the title of patch 1
>   - add patch 2
> 
> Patch 1 fix that blk-throttle can't work if multiple bios are throttle,
> Patch 2 fix overflow while calculating wait time
> Patch 3,4 fix io hung due to configuration updates.
> Patch 5-8 are cleanup patches, there are no functional changes, just
> some places that I think can be optimized during code review.

friendly ping ...
> 
> Previous version:
> v1: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220517134909.2910251-1-yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org/
> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220518072751.1188163-1-yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org/
> v3: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220519085811.879097-1-yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org/
> v4: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220523082633.2324980-1-yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org/
> 
> Yu Kuai (8):
>    blk-throttle: fix that io throttle can only work for single bio
>    blk-throttle: prevent overflow while calculating wait time
>    blk-throttle: factor out code to calculate ios/bytes_allowed
>    blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates
>    blk-throttle: use 'READ/WRITE' instead of '0/1'
>    blk-throttle: calling throtl_dequeue/enqueue_tg in pairs
>    blk-throttle: cleanup tg_update_disptime()
>    blk-throttle: clean up flag 'THROTL_TG_PENDING'
> 
>   block/blk-throttle.c | 158 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>   block/blk-throttle.h |  16 +++--
>   2 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
> 

Re: [PATCH -next v5 0/8] bugfix and cleanup for blk-throttle

[Yu Kuai]

在 2022/06/02 19:14, Yu Kuai 写道:
> 在 2022/05/28 14:43, Yu Kuai 写道:
>> Changes in v5:
>>   - add comments in patch 4
>>   - clear bytes/io_skipped in throtl_start_new_slice_with_credit() in
>>   patch 4
>>   - and cleanup patches 5-8
>> Changes in v4:
>>   - add reviewed-by tag for patch 1
>>   - add patch 2,3
>>   - use a different way to fix io hung in patch 4
>> Changes in v3:
>>   - fix a check in patch 1
>>   - fix link err in patch 2 on 32-bit platform
>>   - handle overflow in patch 2
>> Changes in v2:
>>   - use a new solution suggested by Ming
>>   - change the title of patch 1
>>   - add patch 2
>>
>> Patch 1 fix that blk-throttle can't work if multiple bios are throttle,
>> Patch 2 fix overflow while calculating wait time
>> Patch 3,4 fix io hung due to configuration updates.
>> Patch 5-8 are cleanup patches, there are no functional changes, just
>> some places that I think can be optimized during code review.
> 
> friendly ping ...

friendly ping ...

I'll resend this patchset soon if there are still no response.

Thanks,
Kuai
>>
>> Previous version:
>> v1: 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220517134909.2910251-1-yukuai3@huawei.com/
>> v2: 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220518072751.1188163-1-yukuai3@huawei.com/
>> v3: 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220519085811.879097-1-yukuai3@huawei.com/
>> v4: 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220523082633.2324980-1-yukuai3@huawei.com/
>>
>> Yu Kuai (8):
>>    blk-throttle: fix that io throttle can only work for single bio
>>    blk-throttle: prevent overflow while calculating wait time
>>    blk-throttle: factor out code to calculate ios/bytes_allowed
>>    blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates
>>    blk-throttle: use 'READ/WRITE' instead of '0/1'
>>    blk-throttle: calling throtl_dequeue/enqueue_tg in pairs
>>    blk-throttle: cleanup tg_update_disptime()
>>    blk-throttle: clean up flag 'THROTL_TG_PENDING'
>>
>>   block/blk-throttle.c | 158 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>   block/blk-throttle.h |  16 +++--
>>   2 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
>>

Re: [PATCH -next v5 0/8] bugfix and cleanup for blk-throttle

[Yu Kuai]

在 2022/06/02 19:14, Yu Kuai 写道:
> 在 2022/05/28 14:43, Yu Kuai 写道:
>> Changes in v5:
>>   - add comments in patch 4
>>   - clear bytes/io_skipped in throtl_start_new_slice_with_credit() in
>>   patch 4
>>   - and cleanup patches 5-8
>> Changes in v4:
>>   - add reviewed-by tag for patch 1
>>   - add patch 2,3
>>   - use a different way to fix io hung in patch 4
>> Changes in v3:
>>   - fix a check in patch 1
>>   - fix link err in patch 2 on 32-bit platform
>>   - handle overflow in patch 2
>> Changes in v2:
>>   - use a new solution suggested by Ming
>>   - change the title of patch 1
>>   - add patch 2
>>
>> Patch 1 fix that blk-throttle can't work if multiple bios are throttle,
>> Patch 2 fix overflow while calculating wait time
>> Patch 3,4 fix io hung due to configuration updates.
>> Patch 5-8 are cleanup patches, there are no functional changes, just
>> some places that I think can be optimized during code review.
> 
> friendly ping ...

friendly ping ...

I'll resend this patchset soon if there are still no response.

Thanks,
Kuai
>>
>> Previous version:
>> v1: 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220517134909.2910251-1-yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org/
>> v2: 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220518072751.1188163-1-yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org/
>> v3: 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220519085811.879097-1-yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org/
>> v4: 
>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220523082633.2324980-1-yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org/
>>
>> Yu Kuai (8):
>>    blk-throttle: fix that io throttle can only work for single bio
>>    blk-throttle: prevent overflow while calculating wait time
>>    blk-throttle: factor out code to calculate ios/bytes_allowed
>>    blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates
>>    blk-throttle: use 'READ/WRITE' instead of '0/1'
>>    blk-throttle: calling throtl_dequeue/enqueue_tg in pairs
>>    blk-throttle: cleanup tg_update_disptime()
>>    blk-throttle: clean up flag 'THROTL_TG_PENDING'
>>
>>   block/blk-throttle.c | 158 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>   block/blk-throttle.h |  16 +++--
>>   2 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
>>

Re: [PATCH -next v5 0/8] bugfix and cleanup for blk-throttle

[Yu Kuai]

Hi, Tejun (and Ming, Michal)

Can you guys take a look at this patchset?

Thanks

在 2022/06/09 8:59, Yu Kuai 写道:
> 在 2022/06/02 19:14, Yu Kuai 写道:
>> 在 2022/05/28 14:43, Yu Kuai 写道:
>>> Changes in v5:
>>>   - add comments in patch 4
>>>   - clear bytes/io_skipped in throtl_start_new_slice_with_credit() in
>>>   patch 4
>>>   - and cleanup patches 5-8
>>> Changes in v4:
>>>   - add reviewed-by tag for patch 1
>>>   - add patch 2,3
>>>   - use a different way to fix io hung in patch 4
>>> Changes in v3:
>>>   - fix a check in patch 1
>>>   - fix link err in patch 2 on 32-bit platform
>>>   - handle overflow in patch 2
>>> Changes in v2:
>>>   - use a new solution suggested by Ming
>>>   - change the title of patch 1
>>>   - add patch 2
>>>
>>> Patch 1 fix that blk-throttle can't work if multiple bios are throttle,
>>> Patch 2 fix overflow while calculating wait time
>>> Patch 3,4 fix io hung due to configuration updates.
>>> Patch 5-8 are cleanup patches, there are no functional changes, just
>>> some places that I think can be optimized during code review.
>>
>> friendly ping ...
> 
> friendly ping ...
> 
> I'll resend this patchset soon if there are still no response.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kuai
>>>
>>> Previous version:
>>> v1: 
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220517134909.2910251-1-yukuai3@huawei.com/
>>> v2: 
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220518072751.1188163-1-yukuai3@huawei.com/
>>> v3: 
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220519085811.879097-1-yukuai3@huawei.com/
>>> v4: 
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220523082633.2324980-1-yukuai3@huawei.com/
>>>
>>> Yu Kuai (8):
>>>    blk-throttle: fix that io throttle can only work for single bio
>>>    blk-throttle: prevent overflow while calculating wait time
>>>    blk-throttle: factor out code to calculate ios/bytes_allowed
>>>    blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates
>>>    blk-throttle: use 'READ/WRITE' instead of '0/1'
>>>    blk-throttle: calling throtl_dequeue/enqueue_tg in pairs
>>>    blk-throttle: cleanup tg_update_disptime()
>>>    blk-throttle: clean up flag 'THROTL_TG_PENDING'
>>>
>>>   block/blk-throttle.c | 158 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>>   block/blk-throttle.h |  16 +++--
>>>   2 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
>>>

Re: [PATCH -next v5 0/8] bugfix and cleanup for blk-throttle

[Yu Kuai]

Hi, Tejun (and Ming, Michal)

Can you guys take a look at this patchset?

Thanks

在 2022/06/09 8:59, Yu Kuai 写道:
> 在 2022/06/02 19:14, Yu Kuai 写道:
>> 在 2022/05/28 14:43, Yu Kuai 写道:
>>> Changes in v5:
>>>   - add comments in patch 4
>>>   - clear bytes/io_skipped in throtl_start_new_slice_with_credit() in
>>>   patch 4
>>>   - and cleanup patches 5-8
>>> Changes in v4:
>>>   - add reviewed-by tag for patch 1
>>>   - add patch 2,3
>>>   - use a different way to fix io hung in patch 4
>>> Changes in v3:
>>>   - fix a check in patch 1
>>>   - fix link err in patch 2 on 32-bit platform
>>>   - handle overflow in patch 2
>>> Changes in v2:
>>>   - use a new solution suggested by Ming
>>>   - change the title of patch 1
>>>   - add patch 2
>>>
>>> Patch 1 fix that blk-throttle can't work if multiple bios are throttle,
>>> Patch 2 fix overflow while calculating wait time
>>> Patch 3,4 fix io hung due to configuration updates.
>>> Patch 5-8 are cleanup patches, there are no functional changes, just
>>> some places that I think can be optimized during code review.
>>
>> friendly ping ...
> 
> friendly ping ...
> 
> I'll resend this patchset soon if there are still no response.
> 
> Thanks,
> Kuai
>>>
>>> Previous version:
>>> v1: 
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220517134909.2910251-1-yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org/
>>> v2: 
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220518072751.1188163-1-yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org/
>>> v3: 
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220519085811.879097-1-yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org/
>>> v4: 
>>> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220523082633.2324980-1-yukuai3-hv44wF8Li93QT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org/
>>>
>>> Yu Kuai (8):
>>>    blk-throttle: fix that io throttle can only work for single bio
>>>    blk-throttle: prevent overflow while calculating wait time
>>>    blk-throttle: factor out code to calculate ios/bytes_allowed
>>>    blk-throttle: fix io hung due to config updates
>>>    blk-throttle: use 'READ/WRITE' instead of '0/1'
>>>    blk-throttle: calling throtl_dequeue/enqueue_tg in pairs
>>>    blk-throttle: cleanup tg_update_disptime()
>>>    blk-throttle: clean up flag 'THROTL_TG_PENDING'
>>>
>>>   block/blk-throttle.c | 158 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>>   block/blk-throttle.h |  16 +++--
>>>   2 files changed, 120 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
>>>