Commit 1be6e8a9 authored by Angelo Ruocco's avatar Angelo Ruocco Committed by Jens Axboe

block, bfq: check low_latency flag in bfq_bfqq_save_state()

A just-created bfq_queue will certainly be deemed as interactive on
the arrival of its first I/O request, if the low_latency flag is
set. Yet, if the queue is merged with another queue on the arrival of
its first I/O request, it will not have the chance to be flagged as
interactive. Nevertheless, if the queue is then split soon enough, it
has to be flagged as interactive after the split.

To handle this early-merge scenario correctly, BFQ saves the state of
the queue, on the merge, as if the latter had already been deemed
interactive. So, if the queue is split soon, it will get
weight-raised, because the previous state of the queue is resumed on
the split.

Unfortunately, in the act of saving the state of the newly-created
queue, BFQ doesn't check whether the low_latency flag is set, and this
causes early-merged queues to be then weight-raised, on queue splits,
even if low_latency is off. This commit addresses this problem by
adding the missing check.
Signed-off-by: default avatarAngelo Ruocco <angeloruocco90@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarPaolo Valente <paolo.valente@linaro.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarJens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
parent 05e90283
......@@ -2064,7 +2064,8 @@ static void bfq_bfqq_save_state(struct bfq_queue *bfqq)
bic->saved_in_large_burst = bfq_bfqq_in_large_burst(bfqq);
bic->was_in_burst_list = !hlist_unhashed(&bfqq->burst_list_node);
if (unlikely(bfq_bfqq_just_created(bfqq) &&
!bfq_bfqq_in_large_burst(bfqq))) {
!bfq_bfqq_in_large_burst(bfqq) &&
bfqq->bfqd->low_latency)) {
/*
* bfqq being merged right after being created: bfqq
* would have deserved interactive weight raising, but
......
Markdown is supported
0% or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment