Re: [PATCH] cfq: Take whether cfq group is changed into account when choosing service tree

[Corrado Zoccolo <czoccolo@gmail.com>]

Hi Gui,
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:54 AM, Gui Jianfeng
<guijianfeng@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Corrado Zoccolo wrote:
>> Hi,
> Currently, IIUC, only the workload that didn't use up its slice will be saved, and only
> such workloads are restoring when a group is resumed. So sometimes, we'll still get the
> previous serving_type and workload_expires. Am i missing something?
You are right. cfq_choose_cfqg should set the workload as expired if
!cfqg->saved_workload_slice (just set cfqd->workload_expires = jiffies
- 1), so the workload will be chosen again as the lowest keyed one.
Can you send a patch to fix this?
>
>
>>
>> I have one more concern, though.
>> RT priority has now changed meaning. Before, an RT task would always
>> have priority access to the disk. Now, a BE task in a different group,
>> with lower weight, can steal the disk from the RT task.
>> A way to preserve the old meaning is to consider wheter a group has RT
>> tasks inside when sorting groups tree, and putting those groups at the
>> front.
>> Usually, RT tasks will be put in the root group, and this (if
>> group_isolation=0) will automatically make sure that also the noidle
>> workload gets serviced quickly after RT tasks release the disk. We
>> could even enforce that, with group_isolation=0, all RT tasks are put
>> in the root group.
>>
>> The rationale behind this suggestion is that groups are for user
>> processes, while RT is system wide, since it is only root that can
>> grant it.
>
>  I agree, and one more thing, currently we can't see fairness between different
>  idle tasks in different groups. Because we only allow idle cfqq dispatch one request
>  for its dispatch round even if it's the only task in the cgroup, group always loose it
>  share. So whether we can rely on group_isolation, when group_isolation == 1 we provide
>  isolation for idle tasks.
Agreed.

Thanks,
Corrado

>
> Thanks
> Gui
>
>
>