Re: [PATCH] f2fs: use new ioprio Macro to get ckpt thread ioprio data

[Zhiguo Niu]

On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 3:50 PM Chao Yu <chao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2024/6/3 14:52, Zhiguo Niu wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 2:39 PM Chao Yu <chao@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2024/5/31 17:10, Zhiguo Niu wrote:
> >>> Use new Macro IOPRIO_PRIO_LEVEL to get ckpt thread ioprio data(level),
> >>> it is more accurate and consisten with the way setting ckpt thread
> >>> ioprio(IOPRIO_PRIO_VALUE(class, data)).
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Zhiguo Niu <zhiguo.niu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>    fs/f2fs/sysfs.c | 2 +-
> >>>    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/sysfs.c b/fs/f2fs/sysfs.c
> >>> index 72676c5..55d46da 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/sysfs.c
> >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/sysfs.c
> >>> @@ -340,7 +340,7 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_sbi_show(struct f2fs_attr *a,
> >>>        if (!strcmp(a->attr.name, "ckpt_thread_ioprio")) {
> >>>                struct ckpt_req_control *cprc = &sbi->cprc_info;
> >>>                int class = IOPRIO_PRIO_CLASS(cprc->ckpt_thread_ioprio);
> >>> -             int data = IOPRIO_PRIO_DATA(cprc->ckpt_thread_ioprio);
> >>> +             int data = IOPRIO_PRIO_LEVEL(cprc->ckpt_thread_ioprio);
> >>
> >> So, can you please use 'level' to instead 'data' in f2fs_sbi_show() and
> >> __sbi_store()?
> > Hi Chao,
> >
> > IOPRIO_PRIO_DATA in the new kernel version includes two parts: level and hint.
> > In __sbi_store, " IOPRIO_PRIO_VALUE(class, data)"  is used to set ckpt
> > iopriority,
> > and it will pass default hint value, we just need to keep class /level right.
>
> Zhiguo,
>
> I think f2fs only support configuring priolevel rather than priolevel and
> priohint of ckpt thread via ckpt_thread_ioprio sysfs interface, so it will
> be more readable to use 'level' instead of 'data' in context of the interface,
> thoughts?
Hi  Chao,
I understand what you said and I agree with this. I will update it in
the next version.
Thanks!
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> >   #define IOPRIO_PRIO_VALUE(prioclass, priolevel) \
> >     ioprio_value(prioclass, priolevel, IOPRIO_HINT_NONE)
> > so i think this part is not needed to modify.
> >
> > thanks!
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>>
> >>>                if (class != IOPRIO_CLASS_RT && class != IOPRIO_CLASS_BE)
> >>>                        return -EINVAL;
> >>