Re: [PATCH] block/mq-deadline: Fix WARN when set async_depth by sysfs

[Bart Van Assche]

On 4/1/24 10:44 PM, Zhiguo Niu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 5:23 AM Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Oops, I misread your patch. After having taken another look, my
> > conclusions are as follows:
> > * sbitmap_queue_min_shallow_depth() is called. This causes
> >     sbq->wake_batch to be modified but I don't think that it is a proper
> >     fix for dd_limit_depth().
> yes, it will affect sbq->wake_batch,  But judging from the following code:
> [ ... ]

If we want to allow small values of dd->async_depth, min_shallow_depth
must be 1. The BFQ I/O scheduler also follows this approach.

> > * dd_limit_depth() still assigns a number in the range 1..nr_requests to
> >     data->shallow_depth while a number in the range 1..(1<<bt->sb.shift)
> >     should be assigned.
> yes, In order to avoid the performance regression problem that Harshit
> Mogalapalli reported, this patch will not directly modify
> dd->async_depth,
> but user can modify dd->async_depth from sysfs according to user's
> request. which will modify data->shallow_depth after user modify it by
> sysfs.

It seems like there is no other option than keeping the current default
depth limit for async requests ...

> My personal opinion is to keep the current dd->aync_depth unchanged to
> avoid causing performance regression,
> but it should  allow users to set it by sysfs, and the WARN mentioned
> best to be solved.
> and just only change this part?
>   -       sbitmap_queue_min_shallow_depth(&tags->bitmap_tags, dd->async_depth);
>   +       sbitmap_queue_min_shallow_depth(&tags->bitmap_tags, 1);
> thanks!

The above change will suppress the kernel warning. I think the other
changes from patch 2/2 are also necessary. Otherwise the unit of
"async_depth" will depend on sbitmap word shift parameter. I don't think
that users should have to worry about which shift value has been chosen
by the sbitmap implementation.

Thanks,

Bart.