Re: [PATCH v2] block: simplify I/O stat accounting

[Jens Axboe]

On Fri, Apr 17 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 17 2009, Jerome Marchand wrote:
> > 
> > This simplifies I/O stat accounting switching code and separates it
> > completely from I/O scheduler switch code.
> > 
> > Requests are accounted according to the state of their request queue
> > at the time of the request allocation. There is no need anymore to
> > flush the request queue when switching I/O accounting state.
> > 
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> >  block/blk-core.c       |   10 ++++++----
> >  block/blk-merge.c      |    6 +++---
> >  block/blk-sysfs.c      |    4 ----
> >  block/blk.h            |    7 +------
> >  include/linux/blkdev.h |    3 +++
> >  5 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> > index 07ab754..42a646f 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-core.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> > @@ -643,7 +643,7 @@ static inline void blk_free_request(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq)
> >  }
> >  
> >  static struct request *
> > -blk_alloc_request(struct request_queue *q, int rw, int priv, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > +blk_alloc_request(struct request_queue *q, int flags, int priv, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> >  {
> >  	struct request *rq = mempool_alloc(q->rq.rq_pool, gfp_mask);
> >  
> > @@ -652,7 +652,7 @@ blk_alloc_request(struct request_queue *q, int rw, int priv, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> >  
> >  	blk_rq_init(q, rq);
> >  
> > -	rq->cmd_flags = rw | REQ_ALLOCED;
> > +	rq->cmd_flags = flags | REQ_ALLOCED;
> >  
> >  	if (priv) {
> >  		if (unlikely(elv_set_request(q, rq, gfp_mask))) {
> > @@ -744,7 +744,7 @@ static struct request *get_request(struct request_queue *q, int rw_flags,
> >  	struct request_list *rl = &q->rq;
> >  	struct io_context *ioc = NULL;
> >  	const bool is_sync = rw_is_sync(rw_flags) != 0;
> > -	int may_queue, priv;
> > +	int may_queue, priv, iostat = 0;
> >  
> >  	may_queue = elv_may_queue(q, rw_flags);
> >  	if (may_queue == ELV_MQUEUE_NO)
> > @@ -792,9 +792,11 @@ static struct request *get_request(struct request_queue *q, int rw_flags,
> >  	if (priv)
> >  		rl->elvpriv++;
> >  
> > +	if (blk_queue_io_stat(q))
> > +		iostat = REQ_IO_STAT;
> 
> On second thought, not sure why you add 'iostat' for this. It would be
> OK to just do
> 
>         if (blk_queue_io_stat(q))
>                 rw_flags |= REQ_IO_STAT;
> 
> since it's just used for the allocation call, and the trace call (which
> does & 1 on it anyway).
> 
> >  
> > -	rq = blk_alloc_request(q, rw_flags, priv, gfp_mask);
> > +	rq = blk_alloc_request(q, rw_flags | iostat, priv, gfp_mask);
> >  	if (unlikely(!rq)) {
> >  		/*
> >  		 * Allocation failed presumably due to memory. Undo anything
> > diff --git a/block/blk-merge.c b/block/blk-merge.c
> > index 63760ca..6a05270 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-merge.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-merge.c
> > @@ -338,9 +338,9 @@ static int ll_merge_requests_fn(struct request_queue *q, struct request *req,
> >  	return 1;
> >  }
> >  
> > -static void blk_account_io_merge(struct request *req)
> > +static void blk_account_io_merge(struct request *req, struct request *next)
> >  {
> > -	if (blk_do_io_stat(req)) {
> > +	if (req->rq_disk && blk_rq_io_stat(next)) {
> 
> This at least needs a comment, it's not at all directly clear why we are
> checking 'next' for io stat and ->rq_disk in 'req'. Since it's just
> called from that one spot, it would be cleaner to do:
> 
>         /*
>          * 'next' is going away, so update stats accordingly
>          */
>         if (blk_rq_io_stat(next))
>                 blk_account_io_merge(req->rq_disk, req->sector);
> 
> and have blk_account_io_merge() be more ala:
> 
> static void blk_account_io_merge(struct request *req)
> {
>         struct hd_struct *part;
>         int cpu;
> 
>         cpu = part_stat_lock();
>         part = disk_map_sector_rcu(disk, sector);
>         ...
> }

BTW, it seems there's a current problem with this construct. If 'req'
and 'next' reside on different partitions, the accounting will be wrong.
This wont happen with normal fs activity of course, but it's definitely
possible with buffered (or O_DIRECT) IO on the full device.

-- 
Jens Axboe

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/