Suppose that I/O dispatch is plugged, to wait for new I/O for the
in-service bfq-queue, say bfqq. Suppose then that there is a further
bfq_queue woken by bfqq, and that this woken queue has pending I/O. A
woken queue does not steal bandwidth from bfqq, because it remains
soon without I/O if bfqq is not served. So there is virtually no risk
of loss of bandwidth for bfqq if this woken queue has I/O dispatched
while bfqq is waiting for new I/O. In contrast, this extra I/O
injection boosts throughput. This commit performs this extra
injection.
Tested-by: Jan Kara
Signed-off-by: Paolo Valente
---
block/bfq-iosched.c | 32 +++-
block/bfq-wf2q.c| 8
2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
index 445cef9c0bb9..a83149407336 100644
--- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
@@ -4487,9 +4487,15 @@ static struct bfq_queue *bfq_select_queue(struct
bfq_data *bfqd)
bfq_bfqq_busy(bfqq->bic->bfqq[0]) &&
bfqq->bic->bfqq[0]->next_rq ?
bfqq->bic->bfqq[0] : NULL;
+ struct bfq_queue *blocked_bfqq =
+ !hlist_empty(>woken_list) ?
+ container_of(bfqq->woken_list.first,
+struct bfq_queue,
+woken_list_node)
+ : NULL;
/*
-* The next three mutually-exclusive ifs decide
+* The next four mutually-exclusive ifs decide
* whether to try injection, and choose the queue to
* pick an I/O request from.
*
@@ -4522,7 +4528,15 @@ static struct bfq_queue *bfq_select_queue(struct
bfq_data *bfqd)
* next bfqq's I/O is brought forward dramatically,
* for it is not blocked for milliseconds.
*
-* The third if checks whether bfqq is a queue for
+* The third if checks whether there is a queue woken
+* by bfqq, and currently with pending I/O. Such a
+* woken queue does not steal bandwidth from bfqq,
+* because it remains soon without I/O if bfqq is not
+* served. So there is virtually no risk of loss of
+* bandwidth for bfqq if this woken queue has I/O
+* dispatched while bfqq is waiting for new I/O.
+*
+* The fourth if checks whether bfqq is a queue for
* which it is better to avoid injection. It is so if
* bfqq delivers more throughput when served without
* any further I/O from other queues in the middle, or
@@ -4542,11 +4556,11 @@ static struct bfq_queue *bfq_select_queue(struct
bfq_data *bfqd)
* bfq_update_has_short_ttime(), it is rather likely
* that, if I/O is being plugged for bfqq and the
* waker queue has pending I/O requests that are
-* blocking bfqq's I/O, then the third alternative
+* blocking bfqq's I/O, then the fourth alternative
* above lets the waker queue get served before the
* I/O-plugging timeout fires. So one may deem the
* second alternative superfluous. It is not, because
-* the third alternative may be way less effective in
+* the fourth alternative may be way less effective in
* case of a synchronization. For two main
* reasons. First, throughput may be low because the
* inject limit may be too low to guarantee the same
@@ -4555,7 +4569,7 @@ static struct bfq_queue *bfq_select_queue(struct bfq_data
*bfqd)
* guarantees (the second alternative unconditionally
* injects a pending I/O request of the waker queue
* for each bfq_dispatch_request()). Second, with the
-* third alternative, the duration of the plugging,
+* fourth alternative, the duration of the plugging,
* i.e., the time before bfqq finally receives new I/O,
* may not be minimized, because the waker queue may
* happen to be served only after other queues.
@@ -4573,6 +4587,14 @@ static struct bfq_queue *bfq_select_queue(struct
bfq_data *bfqd)
bfq_bfqq_budget_left(bfqq->waker_bfqq)
)
bfqq = bfqq->waker_bfqq;
+ else if (blocked_bfqq &&
+ bfq_bfqq_busy(blocked_bfqq) &&
+ blocked_bfqq->next_rq &&
+ bfq_serv_to_charge(blocked_bfqq->next_rq,
+ blocked_bfqq) <=
+ bfq_bfqq_budget_left(blocked_bfqq)
+
