Re: [PATCH -next v3 2/2] blk-throttle: fix io hung due to configuration updates

[yukuai (C)]

在 2022/05/20 9:22, yukuai (C) 写道:
> 在 2022/05/20 0:10, Michal Koutný 写道:
> > On Thu, May 19, 2022 at 08:14:28PM +0800, "yukuai (C)" 
> > <yukuai3@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > tg_with_in_bps_limit:
> > >   jiffy_elapsed_rnd = jiffies - tg->slice_start[rw];
> > >   tmp = bps_limit * jiffy_elapsed_rnd;
> > >   do_div(tmp, HZ);
> > >   bytes_allowed = tmp; -> how many bytes are allowed in this slice,
> > >                  incluing dispatched.
> > >   if (tg->bytes_disp[rw] + bio_size <= bytes_allowed)
> > >    *wait = 0 -> no need to wait if this bio is within limit
> > >
> > >   extra_bytes = tg->bytes_disp[rw] + bio_size - bytes_allowed;
> > >   -> extra_bytes is based on 'bytes_disp'
> > >
> > > For example:
> > >
> > > 1) bps_limit is 2k, we issue two io, (1k and 9k)
> > > 2) the first io(1k) will be dispatched, bytes_disp = 1k, slice_start = 0
> > >     the second io(9k) is waiting for (9 - (2 - 1)) / 2 = 4 s
> >
> > The 2nd io arrived at 1s, the wait time is 4s, i.e. it can be dispatched
> > at 5s (i.e. 10k/*2kB/s = 5s).
> No, the example is that the second io arrived together with first io.
> > > 3) after 3 s, we update bps_limit to 1k, then new waiting is caculated:
> > >
> > > without this patch:  bytes_disp = 0, slict_start =3:
> > > bytes_allowed = 1k                                <--- why 1k and not 0?
> Because slice_start == jiffies, bytes_allowed is equal to bps_limit
> > > extra_bytes = 9k - 1k = 8k
> > > wait = 8s
> >
> > This looks like it was calculated at time 4s (1s after new config was
> > set).
> No... it was caculated at time 3s:
>
> jiffy_elapsed_rnd = roundup(jiffy_elapsed_rnd, tg->td->throtl_slice);
>
> jiffies should be greater than 3s here, thus jiffy_elapsed_rnd is
> 3s + throtl_slice (I'm using throtl_slice = 1s here, it should not
> affect result)
Hi,

Just to simplify explanation (assum that throtl_slice is greater than
0.5s):
Without this patch:
wait time is caculated based on issuing 9k from now(3s) without any
bytes aready dispatched.

With this patch:
wait time is caculated based on issuing 9k from 0s with 0.5 bytes
aready dispatched.
> > > whth this patch: bytes_disp = 0.5k, slice_start =  0,
> > > bytes_allowed = 1k * 3 + 1k = 4k
> > > extra_bytes =  0.5k + 9k - 4k = 5.5k
> > > wait = 5.5s
> >
> > This looks like calculated at 4s, so the IO would be waiting till
> > 4s+5.5s = 9.5s.
> wait time is based on extra_bytes, this is really 5.5s, add 4s is
> wrong here.
>
> bytes_allowed = ((jiffies - slice_start) / Hz + 1) * bps_limit
> extra_bytes = bio_size + bytes_disp - bytes_allowed
> wait = extra_bytes / bps_limit
> > As I don't know why using time 4s, I'll shift this calculation to the
> > time 3s (when the config changes):
> >
> > bytes_disp = 0.5k, slice_start =  0,
> > bytes_allowed = 1k * 3  = 3k
> > extra_bytes =  0.5k + 9k - 3k = 7.5k
> 6.5k
> > wait = 7.5s
> >
> > In absolute time, the IO would wait till 3s+7.5s = 10.5s
> Like I said above, wait time should not add (jiffies - slice_start)
> > OK, either your 9.5s or my 10.5s looks weird (although earlier than
> > original 4s+8s=12s).
> > However, the IO should ideally only wait till
> >
> >      3s + (9k -   (6k    -    1k)     ) / 1k/s =
> >           bio - (allowed - dispatched)  / new_limit
> >
> >     =3s + 4k / 1k/s = 7s
> >
> >     ('allowed' is based on old limit)
> >
> > Or in another example, what if you change the config from 2k/s to ∞k/s
> > (unlimited, let's neglect the arithmetic overflow that you handle
> > explicitly, imagine a big number but not so big to be greater than
> > division result).
> >
> > In such a case, the wait time should be zero, i.e. IO should be
> > dispatched right at the time of config change.
>
> I thought about it, however, IMO, this is not a good idea. If user
> updated config quite frequently, io throttle will be invalid.
>
> Thanks,
> Kuai
> > (With your patch that still calculates >0 wait time (and the original
> > behavior gives >0 wait too.)
> >
> > > I hope I can expliain it clearly...
> >
> > Yes, thanks for pointing me to relevant parts.
> > I hope I grasped them correctly.
> >
> > IOW, your patch and formula make the wait time shorter but still IO can
> > be delayed indefinitely if you pass a sequence of new configs. (AFAIU)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Michal
> > .