Re: [PATCH 0/6 v5.1] cfq-iosched: Introduce CFQ group hierarchicalscheduling and "use_hierarchy" interface

[Gui Jianfeng]

Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 04, 2011 at 12:34:11PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
>> Gui Jianfeng wrote:
>>> Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 06:16:18PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 25, 2011 at 09:55:32AM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
>>>>>> Vivek Goyal wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 11:01:35AM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I rebase this series on top of *for-next* branch, it will make merging life easier.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Previously, I posted a patchset to add support of CFQ group hierarchical scheduling
>>>>>>>> in the way that it puts all CFQ queues in a hidden group and schedules with other 
>>>>>>>> CFQ group under their parent. The patchset is available here,
>>>>>>>> http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/8/30/30
>>>>>>> Gui,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was running some tests (iostest) with these patches and my system crashed
>>>>>>> after a while.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To be precise I was running "brrmmap" test of iostest.
>>>>>> Vivek,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I simply run iostest with brrmmap mode, I can't reproduce this bug.
>>>>>> Would you give more details.
>>>>>> Can you tell me the iostest command line options?
>>>>> iostest /dev/dm-1 -G --nrgrp 4 -m 8 --cgtime --io_serviced --dequeue --total
>>>>>
>>>>> I was actually trying to run all the workloads defined but after running
>>>>> 2 workloads it crashed on 3rd workload.
>>>>>
>>>>> Now I tried to re-run brrmmap and it did not crash. So I am trying to run
>>>>> all the inbuilt workloads again.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you enable use_hierarchy in root group?
>>>>> No I did not. Trying to test the flat setup first.
>>>> Again was running above job and after 3 workloads it ran into a different
>>>> BUG_ON().
>>> Vivek,
>>>
>>> It seems there's a race.
>>> Would you try the following patch. This patch seems working for me.
>>>
>>> diff --git a/block/cfq-iosched.c b/block/cfq-iosched.c
>>> index 380d667..abbbb0e 100644
>>> --- a/block/cfq-iosched.c
>>> +++ b/block/cfq-iosched.c
>>> @@ -4126,11 +4126,12 @@ new_queue:
>>>  	cfqq->allocated[rw]++;
>>>  	cfqq->ref++;
>>>  
>>> -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(q->queue_lock, flags);
>>> -
>>>  	rq->elevator_private[0] = cic;
>>>  	rq->elevator_private[1] = cfqq;
>>>  	rq->elevator_private[2] = cfq_ref_get_cfqg(cfqq->cfqg);
>>> +
>>> +	spin_unlock_irqrestore(q->queue_lock, flags);
>>> +
>>>  	return 0;
>>>  
>>>  queue_fail:
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Gui
>>>
>> Jens,
>>
>> This bug seems being introduced in commmit 763414b in for-next branch when
>> merging for-2.6.39/core branch.
>> Would you apply the above patch?
>>
>> Vivek, can you try the patchset again with this fix? It works fine for me now.
> 
> Gui,
> 
> Ok, I ran iostest with this fix and it seems to have worked. I need to run
> it for some more time. And I also need to spend more time reviewing your
> patchset. There are so many details to it. Soon I will spare some time
> to review it more and also test it bit more.

Vivek,

Ok, thanks.

> 
> Of the top of my head I have one concern.
> 
> - How to map iopriority to weights. I am thinking that currently weight
>   range is 100-1000. If we decide to extend the range in current scheme,
>   it will change the ioprio entity weight also and effectively the
>   service differentiation between ioprio level will change. I am
>   wondering if this is a concern and how cpu scheduler has managed it

Isn't it enought for ten times of weight difference? The old ioprio scheme
has only 4.5 times service difference. So I think we don't need to extend
the range for the time being.

Thanks,
Gui

> 
> Thanks
> Vivek
> 
--
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/