diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | block/bfq-iosched.c | 387 |
1 files changed, 203 insertions, 184 deletions
diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c index 6a3d05023300..72840ebf953e 100644 --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c @@ -3210,7 +3210,186 @@ static void bfq_dispatch_remove(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq) bfq_remove_request(q, rq); } -static bool __bfq_bfqq_expire(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq) +/* + * There is a case where idling does not have to be performed for + * throughput concerns, but to preserve the throughput share of + * the process associated with bfqq. + * + * To introduce this case, we can note that allowing the drive + * to enqueue more than one request at a time, and hence + * delegating de facto final scheduling decisions to the + * drive's internal scheduler, entails loss of control on the + * actual request service order. In particular, the critical + * situation is when requests from different processes happen + * to be present, at the same time, in the internal queue(s) + * of the drive. In such a situation, the drive, by deciding + * the service order of the internally-queued requests, does + * determine also the actual throughput distribution among + * these processes. But the drive typically has no notion or + * concern about per-process throughput distribution, and + * makes its decisions only on a per-request basis. Therefore, + * the service distribution enforced by the drive's internal + * scheduler is likely to coincide with the desired throughput + * distribution only in a completely symmetric, or favorably + * skewed scenario where: + * (i-a) each of these processes must get the same throughput as + * the others, + * (i-b) in case (i-a) does not hold, it holds that the process + * associated with bfqq must receive a lower or equal + * throughput than any of the other processes; + * (ii) the I/O of each process has the same properties, in + * terms of locality (sequential or random), direction + * (reads or writes), request sizes, greediness + * (from I/O-bound to sporadic), and so on; + + * In fact, in such a scenario, the drive tends to treat the requests + * of each process in about the same way as the requests of the + * others, and thus to provide each of these processes with about the + * same throughput. This is exactly the desired throughput + * distribution if (i-a) holds, or, if (i-b) holds instead, this is an + * even more convenient distribution for (the process associated with) + * bfqq. + * + * In contrast, in any asymmetric or unfavorable scenario, device + * idling (I/O-dispatch plugging) is certainly needed to guarantee + * that bfqq receives its assigned fraction of the device throughput + * (see [1] for details). + * + * The problem is that idling may significantly reduce throughput with + * certain combinations of types of I/O and devices. An important + * example is sync random I/O on flash storage with command + * queueing. So, unless bfqq falls in cases where idling also boosts + * throughput, it is important to check conditions (i-a), i(-b) and + * (ii) accurately, so as to avoid idling when not strictly needed for + * service guarantees. + * + * Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to thoroughly check + * condition (ii). And, in case there are active groups, it becomes + * very difficult to check conditions (i-a) and (i-b) too. In fact, + * if there are active groups, then, for conditions (i-a) or (i-b) to + * become false 'indirectly', it is enough that an active group + * contains more active processes or sub-groups than some other active + * group. More precisely, for conditions (i-a) or (i-b) to become + * false because of such a group, it is not even necessary that the + * group is (still) active: it is sufficient that, even if the group + * has become inactive, some of its descendant processes still have + * some request already dispatched but still waiting for + * completion. In fact, requests have still to be guaranteed their + * share of the throughput even after being dispatched. In this + * respect, it is easy to show that, if a group frequently becomes + * inactive while still having in-flight requests, and if, when this + * happens, the group is not considered in the calculation of whether + * the scenario is asymmetric, then the group may fail to be + * guaranteed its fair share of the throughput (basically because + * idling may not be performed for the descendant processes of the + * group, but it had to be). We address this issue with the following + * bi-modal behavior, implemented in the function + * bfq_asymmetric_scenario(). + * + * If there are groups with requests waiting for completion + * (as commented above, some of these groups may even be + * already inactive), then the scenario is tagged as + * asymmetric, conservatively, without checking any of the + * conditions (i-a), (i-b) or (ii). So the device is idled for bfqq. + * This behavior matches also the fact that groups are created + * exactly if controlling I/O is a primary concern (to + * preserve bandwidth and latency guarantees). + * + * On the opposite end, if there are no groups with requests waiting + * for completion, then only conditions (i-a) and (i-b) are actually + * controlled, i.e., provided that conditions (i-a) or (i-b) holds, + * idling is not performed, regardless of whether condition (ii) + * holds. In other words, only if conditions (i-a) and (i-b) do not + * hold, then idling is allowed, and the device tends to be prevented + * from queueing many requests, possibly of several processes. Since + * there are no groups with requests waiting for completion, then, to + * control conditions (i-a) and (i-b) it is enough to check just + * whether all the queues with requests waiting for completion also + * have the same weight. + * + * Not checking condition (ii) evidently exposes bfqq to the + * risk of getting less throughput than its fair share. + * However, for queues with the same weight, a further + * mechanism, preemption, mitigates or even eliminates this + * problem. And it does so without consequences on overall + * throughput. This mechanism and its benefits are explained + * in the next three paragraphs. + * + * Even if a queue, say Q, is expired when it remains idle, Q + * can still preempt the new in-service queue if the next + * request of Q arrives soon (see the comments on + * bfq_bfqq_update_budg_for_activation). If all queues and + * groups have the same weight, this form of preemption, + * combined with the hole-recovery heuristic described in the + * comments on function bfq_bfqq_update_budg_for_activation, + * are enough to preserve a correct bandwidth distribution in + * the mid term, even without idling. In fact, even if not + * idling allows the internal queues of the device to contain + * many requests, and thus to reorder requests, we can rather + * safely assume that the internal scheduler still preserves a + * minimum of mid-term fairness. + * + * More precisely, this preemption-based, idleless approach + * provides fairness in terms of IOPS, and not sectors per + * second. This can be seen with a simple example. Suppose + * that there are two queues with the same weight, but that + * the first queue receives requests of 8 sectors, while the + * second queue receives requests of 1024 sectors. In + * addition, suppose that each of the two queues contains at + * most one request at a time, which implies that each queue + * always remains idle after it is served. Finally, after + * remaining idle, each queue receives very quickly a new + * request. It follows that the two queues are served + * alternatively, preempting each other if needed. This + * implies that, although both queues have the same weight, + * the queue with large requests receives a service that is + * 1024/8 times as high as the service received by the other + * queue. + * + * The motivation for using preemption instead of idling (for + * queues with the same weight) is that, by not idling, + * service guarantees are preserved (completely or at least in + * part) without minimally sacrificing throughput. And, if + * there is no active group, then the primary expectation for + * this device is probably a high throughput. + * + * We are now left only with explaining the additional + * compound condition that is checked below for deciding + * whether the scenario is asymmetric. To explain this + * compound condition, we need to add that the function + * bfq_asymmetric_scenario checks the weights of only + * non-weight-raised queues, for efficiency reasons (see + * comments on bfq_weights_tree_add()). Then the fact that + * bfqq is weight-raised is checked explicitly here. More + * precisely, the compound condition below takes into account + * also the fact that, even if bfqq is being weight-raised, + * the scenario is still symmetric if all queues with requests + * waiting for completion happen to be + * weight-raised. Actually, we should be even more precise + * here, and differentiate between interactive weight raising + * and soft real-time weight raising. + * + * As a side note, it is worth considering that the above + * device-idling countermeasures may however fail in the + * following unlucky scenario: if idling is (correctly) + * disabled in a time period during which all symmetry + * sub-conditions hold, and hence the device is allowed to + * enqueue many requests, but at some later point in time some + * sub-condition stops to hold, then it may become impossible + * to let requests be served in the desired order until all + * the requests already queued in the device have been served. + */ +static bool idling_needed_for_service_guarantees(struct bfq_data *bfqd, + struct bfq_queue *bfqq) +{ + return (bfqq->wr_coeff > 1 && + bfqd->wr_busy_queues < + bfq_tot_busy_queues(bfqd)) || + bfq_asymmetric_scenario(bfqd, bfqq); +} + +static bool __bfq_bfqq_expire(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq, + enum bfqq_expiration reason) { /* * If this bfqq is shared between multiple processes, check @@ -3221,7 +3400,22 @@ static bool __bfq_bfqq_expire(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq) if (bfq_bfqq_coop(bfqq) && BFQQ_SEEKY(bfqq)) bfq_mark_bfqq_split_coop(bfqq); - if (RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&bfqq->sort_list)) { + /* + * Consider queues with a higher finish virtual time than + * bfqq. If idling_needed_for_service_guarantees(bfqq) returns + * true, then bfqq's bandwidth would be violated if an + * uncontrolled amount of I/O from these queues were + * dispatched while bfqq is waiting for its new I/O to + * arrive. This is exactly what may happen if this is a forced + * expiration caused by a preemption attempt, and if bfqq is + * not re-scheduled. To prevent this from happening, re-queue + * bfqq if it needs I/O-dispatch plugging, even if it is + * empty. By doing so, bfqq is granted to be served before the + * above queues (provided that bfqq is of course eligible). + */ + if (RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&bfqq->sort_list) && + !(reason == BFQQE_PREEMPTED && + idling_needed_for_service_guarantees(bfqd, bfqq))) { if (bfqq->dispatched == 0) /* * Overloading budget_timeout field to store @@ -3238,7 +3432,8 @@ static bool __bfq_bfqq_expire(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq) * Resort priority tree of potential close cooperators. * See comments on bfq_pos_tree_add_move() for the unlikely(). */ - if (unlikely(!bfqd->nonrot_with_queueing)) + if (unlikely(!bfqd->nonrot_with_queueing && + !RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&bfqq->sort_list))) bfq_pos_tree_add_move(bfqd, bfqq); } @@ -3739,7 +3934,7 @@ void bfq_bfqq_expire(struct bfq_data *bfqd, * reason. */ __bfq_bfqq_recalc_budget(bfqd, bfqq, reason); - if (__bfq_bfqq_expire(bfqd, bfqq)) + if (__bfq_bfqq_expire(bfqd, bfqq, reason)) /* bfqq is gone, no more actions on it */ return; @@ -3886,184 +4081,6 @@ static bool idling_boosts_thr_without_issues(struct bfq_data *bfqd, } /* - * There is a case where idling does not have to be performed for - * throughput concerns, but to preserve the throughput share of - * the process associated with bfqq. - * - * To introduce this case, we can note that allowing the drive - * to enqueue more than one request at a time, and hence - * delegating de facto final scheduling decisions to the - * drive's internal scheduler, entails loss of control on the - * actual request service order. In particular, the critical - * situation is when requests from different processes happen - * to be present, at the same time, in the internal queue(s) - * of the drive. In such a situation, the drive, by deciding - * the service order of the internally-queued requests, does - * determine also the actual throughput distribution among - * these processes. But the drive typically has no notion or - * concern about per-process throughput distribution, and - * makes its decisions only on a per-request basis. Therefore, - * the service distribution enforced by the drive's internal - * scheduler is likely to coincide with the desired throughput - * distribution only in a completely symmetric, or favorably - * skewed scenario where: - * (i-a) each of these processes must get the same throughput as - * the others, - * (i-b) in case (i-a) does not hold, it holds that the process - * associated with bfqq must receive a lower or equal - * throughput than any of the other processes; - * (ii) the I/O of each process has the same properties, in - * terms of locality (sequential or random), direction - * (reads or writes), request sizes, greediness - * (from I/O-bound to sporadic), and so on; - - * In fact, in such a scenario, the drive tends to treat the requests - * of each process in about the same way as the requests of the - * others, and thus to provide each of these processes with about the - * same throughput. This is exactly the desired throughput - * distribution if (i-a) holds, or, if (i-b) holds instead, this is an - * even more convenient distribution for (the process associated with) - * bfqq. - * - * In contrast, in any asymmetric or unfavorable scenario, device - * idling (I/O-dispatch plugging) is certainly needed to guarantee - * that bfqq receives its assigned fraction of the device throughput - * (see [1] for details). - * - * The problem is that idling may significantly reduce throughput with - * certain combinations of types of I/O and devices. An important - * example is sync random I/O on flash storage with command - * queueing. So, unless bfqq falls in cases where idling also boosts - * throughput, it is important to check conditions (i-a), i(-b) and - * (ii) accurately, so as to avoid idling when not strictly needed for - * service guarantees. - * - * Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to thoroughly check - * condition (ii). And, in case there are active groups, it becomes - * very difficult to check conditions (i-a) and (i-b) too. In fact, - * if there are active groups, then, for conditions (i-a) or (i-b) to - * become false 'indirectly', it is enough that an active group - * contains more active processes or sub-groups than some other active - * group. More precisely, for conditions (i-a) or (i-b) to become - * false because of such a group, it is not even necessary that the - * group is (still) active: it is sufficient that, even if the group - * has become inactive, some of its descendant processes still have - * some request already dispatched but still waiting for - * completion. In fact, requests have still to be guaranteed their - * share of the throughput even after being dispatched. In this - * respect, it is easy to show that, if a group frequently becomes - * inactive while still having in-flight requests, and if, when this - * happens, the group is not considered in the calculation of whether - * the scenario is asymmetric, then the group may fail to be - * guaranteed its fair share of the throughput (basically because - * idling may not be performed for the descendant processes of the - * group, but it had to be). We address this issue with the following - * bi-modal behavior, implemented in the function - * bfq_asymmetric_scenario(). - * - * If there are groups with requests waiting for completion - * (as commented above, some of these groups may even be - * already inactive), then the scenario is tagged as - * asymmetric, conservatively, without checking any of the - * conditions (i-a), (i-b) or (ii). So the device is idled for bfqq. - * This behavior matches also the fact that groups are created - * exactly if controlling I/O is a primary concern (to - * preserve bandwidth and latency guarantees). - * - * On the opposite end, if there are no groups with requests waiting - * for completion, then only conditions (i-a) and (i-b) are actually - * controlled, i.e., provided that conditions (i-a) or (i-b) holds, - * idling is not performed, regardless of whether condition (ii) - * holds. In other words, only if conditions (i-a) and (i-b) do not - * hold, then idling is allowed, and the device tends to be prevented - * from queueing many requests, possibly of several processes. Since - * there are no groups with requests waiting for completion, then, to - * control conditions (i-a) and (i-b) it is enough to check just - * whether all the queues with requests waiting for completion also - * have the same weight. - * - * Not checking condition (ii) evidently exposes bfqq to the - * risk of getting less throughput than its fair share. - * However, for queues with the same weight, a further - * mechanism, preemption, mitigates or even eliminates this - * problem. And it does so without consequences on overall - * throughput. This mechanism and its benefits are explained - * in the next three paragraphs. - * - * Even if a queue, say Q, is expired when it remains idle, Q - * can still preempt the new in-service queue if the next - * request of Q arrives soon (see the comments on - * bfq_bfqq_update_budg_for_activation). If all queues and - * groups have the same weight, this form of preemption, - * combined with the hole-recovery heuristic described in the - * comments on function bfq_bfqq_update_budg_for_activation, - * are enough to preserve a correct bandwidth distribution in - * the mid term, even without idling. In fact, even if not - * idling allows the internal queues of the device to contain - * many requests, and thus to reorder requests, we can rather - * safely assume that the internal scheduler still preserves a - * minimum of mid-term fairness. - * - * More precisely, this preemption-based, idleless approach - * provides fairness in terms of IOPS, and not sectors per - * second. This can be seen with a simple example. Suppose - * that there are two queues with the same weight, but that - * the first queue receives requests of 8 sectors, while the - * second queue receives requests of 1024 sectors. In - * addition, suppose that each of the two queues contains at - * most one request at a time, which implies that each queue - * always remains idle after it is served. Finally, after - * remaining idle, each queue receives very quickly a new - * request. It follows that the two queues are served - * alternatively, preempting each other if needed. This - * implies that, although both queues have the same weight, - * the queue with large requests receives a service that is - * 1024/8 times as high as the service received by the other - * queue. - * - * The motivation for using preemption instead of idling (for - * queues with the same weight) is that, by not idling, - * service guarantees are preserved (completely or at least in - * part) without minimally sacrificing throughput. And, if - * there is no active group, then the primary expectation for - * this device is probably a high throughput. - * - * We are now left only with explaining the additional - * compound condition that is checked below for deciding - * whether the scenario is asymmetric. To explain this - * compound condition, we need to add that the function - * bfq_asymmetric_scenario checks the weights of only - * non-weight-raised queues, for efficiency reasons (see - * comments on bfq_weights_tree_add()). Then the fact that - * bfqq is weight-raised is checked explicitly here. More - * precisely, the compound condition below takes into account - * also the fact that, even if bfqq is being weight-raised, - * the scenario is still symmetric if all queues with requests - * waiting for completion happen to be - * weight-raised. Actually, we should be even more precise - * here, and differentiate between interactive weight raising - * and soft real-time weight raising. - * - * As a side note, it is worth considering that the above - * device-idling countermeasures may however fail in the - * following unlucky scenario: if idling is (correctly) - * disabled in a time period during which all symmetry - * sub-conditions hold, and hence the device is allowed to - * enqueue many requests, but at some later point in time some - * sub-condition stops to hold, then it may become impossible - * to let requests be served in the desired order until all - * the requests already queued in the device have been served. - */ -static bool idling_needed_for_service_guarantees(struct bfq_data *bfqd, - struct bfq_queue *bfqq) -{ - return (bfqq->wr_coeff > 1 && - bfqd->wr_busy_queues < - bfq_tot_busy_queues(bfqd)) || - bfq_asymmetric_scenario(bfqd, bfqq); -} - -/* * For a queue that becomes empty, device idling is allowed only if * this function returns true for that queue. As a consequence, since * device idling plays a critical role for both throughput boosting @@ -4321,7 +4338,8 @@ check_queue: (bfqq->dispatched != 0 && bfq_better_to_idle(bfqq))) { struct bfq_queue *async_bfqq = bfqq->bic && bfqq->bic->bfqq[0] && - bfq_bfqq_busy(bfqq->bic->bfqq[0]) ? + bfq_bfqq_busy(bfqq->bic->bfqq[0]) && + bfqq->bic->bfqq[0]->next_rq ? bfqq->bic->bfqq[0] : NULL; /* @@ -4403,6 +4421,7 @@ check_queue: bfqq = bfqq->bic->bfqq[0]; else if (bfq_bfqq_has_waker(bfqq) && bfq_bfqq_busy(bfqq->waker_bfqq) && + bfqq->next_rq && bfq_serv_to_charge(bfqq->waker_bfqq->next_rq, bfqq->waker_bfqq) <= bfq_bfqq_budget_left(bfqq->waker_bfqq) @@ -4800,7 +4819,7 @@ static void bfq_exit_bfqq(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq) struct hlist_node *n; if (bfqq == bfqd->in_service_queue) { - __bfq_bfqq_expire(bfqd, bfqq); + __bfq_bfqq_expire(bfqd, bfqq, BFQQE_BUDGET_TIMEOUT); bfq_schedule_dispatch(bfqd); } |