Re: [PATCHv3 1/1] block: introduce content activity based ioprio

From: Matthew Wilcox
Date: Fri Jan 26 2024 - 04:30:37 EST


On Fri, Jan 26, 2024 at 03:59:48PM +0800, Zhaoyang Huang wrote:
> loop more mm and fs guys for more comments

I agree with everything Damien said. But also ...

> > +bool BIO_ADD_FOLIO(struct bio *bio, struct folio *folio, size_t len,
> > + size_t off)

You don't add any users of these functions. It's hard to assess whether
this is the right API when there are no example users.

> > + activity += (bio->bi_vcnt + 1 <= IOPRIO_NR_ACTIVITY &&
> > + PageWorkingset(&folio->page)) ? 1 : 0;

folio_test_workingset().

> > + return bio_add_page(bio, &folio->page, len, off) > 0;

bio_add_folio().

> > +int BIO_ADD_PAGE(struct bio *bio, struct page *page,
> > + unsigned int len, unsigned int offset)
> > +{
> > + int class, level, hint, activity;
> > +
> > + if (bio_add_page(bio, page, len, offset) > 0) {
> > + class = IOPRIO_PRIO_CLASS(bio->bi_ioprio);
> > + level = IOPRIO_PRIO_LEVEL(bio->bi_ioprio);
> > + hint = IOPRIO_PRIO_HINT(bio->bi_ioprio);
> > + activity = IOPRIO_PRIO_ACTIVITY(bio->bi_ioprio);
> > + activity += (bio->bi_vcnt <= IOPRIO_NR_ACTIVITY && PageWorkingset(page)) ? 1 : 0;
> > + bio->bi_ioprio = IOPRIO_PRIO_VALUE_ACTIVITY(class, level, hint, activity);
> > + }

why are BIO_ADD_PAGE and BIO_ADD_FOLIO so very different from each
other?

> > static __always_inline __u16 ioprio_value(int prioclass, int priolevel,
> > - int priohint)
> > + int priohint)

why did you change this whitespace?

> > {
> > if (IOPRIO_BAD_VALUE(prioclass, IOPRIO_NR_CLASSES) ||
> > - IOPRIO_BAD_VALUE(priolevel, IOPRIO_NR_LEVELS) ||
> > - IOPRIO_BAD_VALUE(priohint, IOPRIO_NR_HINTS))
> > + IOPRIO_BAD_VALUE(priolevel, IOPRIO_NR_LEVELS) ||
> > + IOPRIO_BAD_VALUE(priohint, IOPRIO_NR_HINTS))

ditto

> > return IOPRIO_CLASS_INVALID << IOPRIO_CLASS_SHIFT;
> >
> > return (prioclass << IOPRIO_CLASS_SHIFT) |
> > (priohint << IOPRIO_HINT_SHIFT) | priolevel;
> > }
> > -

more gratuitous whitespace change