On 2022/11/29 9:14, Yu Kuai wrote:
Hi,I think "now->now > iocg->delay_at" is unnecessary, it is almost inevitable.
在 2022/11/29 3:58, Tejun Heo 写道:
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 11:04:13AM +0800, Li Jinlin wrote:
/* calculate the current delay in effect - 1/2 every second */
tdelta = now->now - iocg->delay_at;
if (iocg->delay)
- delay = iocg->delay >> div64_u64(tdelta, USEC_PER_SEC);
+ delay = iocg->delay >>
+ min_t(u64, div64_u64(tdelta, USEC_PER_SEC), 63);
I replied earlier but the right thing to do here is setting delay to 0 if
the shift is >= 64.
Perhaps following change will make more sense?
@@ -1322,18 +1323,19 @@ static bool iocg_kick_delay(struct ioc_gq *iocg, struct ioc_now *now)
{
struct ioc *ioc = iocg->ioc;
struct blkcg_gq *blkg = iocg_to_blkg(iocg);
- u64 tdelta, delay, new_delay;
+ u64 delay = 0;
+ u64 new_delay;
s64 vover, vover_pct;
u32 hwa;
lockdep_assert_held(&iocg->waitq.lock);
/* calculate the current delay in effect - 1/2 every second */
- tdelta = now->now - iocg->delay_at;
- if (iocg->delay)
+ if (iocg->delay && now->now > iocg->delay_at) {
+ u64 tdelta = now->now - iocg->delay_at;
+
delay = iocg->delay >> div64_u64(tdelta, USEC_PER_SEC);
- else
- delay = 0;
+ }