Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] block: Add iocontext priority to request

2016-10-14 Thread Adam Manzananares
The 10/14/2016 07:54, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 09:53 PM, Adam Manzanares wrote:
> > Patch adds an association between iocontext ioprio and the ioprio of a
> > request. This value is set in blk_rq_set_prio which takes the request and
> > the ioc as arguments. If the ioc is valid in blk_rq_set_prio then the
> > iopriority of the request is set as the iopriority of the ioc. In
> > init_request_from_bio a check is made to see if the ioprio of the bio is
> > valid and if so then the request prio comes from the bio.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Adam Manzananares <adam.manzana...@wdc.com>
> > ---
> >  block/blk-core.c   |  4 +++-
> >  include/linux/blkdev.h | 14 ++
> >  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> > index 14d7c07..361b1b9 100644
> > --- a/block/blk-core.c
> > +++ b/block/blk-core.c
> > @@ -1153,6 +1153,7 @@ static struct request *__get_request(struct 
> > request_list *rl, int op,
> >  
> > blk_rq_init(q, rq);
> > blk_rq_set_rl(rq, rl);
> > +   blk_rq_set_prio(rq, ioc);
> > req_set_op_attrs(rq, op, op_flags | REQ_ALLOCED);
> >  
> > /* init elvpriv */
> > @@ -1656,7 +1657,8 @@ void init_request_from_bio(struct request *req, 
> > struct bio *bio)
> >  
> > req->errors = 0;
> > req->__sector = bio->bi_iter.bi_sector;
> > -   req->ioprio = bio_prio(bio);
> > +   if (ioprio_valid(bio_prio(bio)))
> > +   req->ioprio = bio_prio(bio);
> > blk_rq_bio_prep(req->q, req, bio);
> >  }
> >  
> > diff --git a/include/linux/blkdev.h b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> > index c47c358..9a0ceaa 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/blkdev.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/blkdev.h
> > @@ -934,6 +934,20 @@ static inline unsigned int blk_rq_count_bios(struct 
> > request *rq)
> >  }
> >  
> >  /*
> > + * blk_rq_set_prio - associate a request with prio from ioc
> > + * @rq: request of interest
> > + * @ioc: target iocontext
> > + *
> > + * Assocate request prio with ioc prio so request based drivers
> > + * can leverage priority information.
> > + */
> > +static inline void blk_rq_set_prio(struct request *rq, struct io_context 
> > *ioc)
> > +{
> > +   if (ioc)
> > +   rq->ioprio = ioc->ioprio;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> >   * Request issue related functions.
> >   */
> >  extern struct request *blk_peek_request(struct request_queue *q);
> > 
> Don't you need to check for 'ioprio_valid()' here, too?

I poked around and it should be safe to not check for ioprio valid
at this point. ioprio_valid only checks to see if the ioprio is 
not IOPRIO_CLASS_NONE. The request by default has a ioprio of none
so if the ioc has ioprio of none we are not changing anything. 

The locations in the code that I found where the ioc prio is set are 
either filtered through the syscall handler, which checks for invalid 
priority combinations, or have valid priority values. 

Take care,
Adam

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Hannes
> -- 
> Dr. Hannes Reinecke  Teamlead Storage & Networking
> h...@suse.de +49 911 74053 688
> SUSE LINUX GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg
> GF: F. Imendörffer, J. Smithard, J. Guild, D. Upmanyu, G. Norton
> HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


Re: [PATCH v4 1/4] block: Add iocontext priority to request

2016-10-13 Thread Adam Manzananares
The 10/13/2016 14:09, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/13/2016 02:06 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Adam Manzanares
> ><adam.manzana...@hgst.com> wrote:
> >>Patch adds an association between iocontext ioprio and the ioprio of a
> >>request. This value is set in blk_rq_set_prio which takes the request and
> >>the ioc as arguments. If the ioc is valid in blk_rq_set_prio then the
> >>iopriority of the request is set as the iopriority of the ioc. In
> >>init_request_from_bio a check is made to see if the ioprio of the bio is
> >>valid and if so then the request prio comes from the bio.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Adam Manzananares <adam.manzana...@wdc.com>
> >>---
> >> block/blk-core.c   |  4 +++-
> >> include/linux/blkdev.h | 14 ++
> >> 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/block/blk-core.c b/block/blk-core.c
> >>index 14d7c07..361b1b9 100644
> >>--- a/block/blk-core.c
> >>+++ b/block/blk-core.c
> >>@@ -1153,6 +1153,7 @@ static struct request *__get_request(struct 
> >>request_list *rl, int op,
> >>
> >>blk_rq_init(q, rq);
> >>blk_rq_set_rl(rq, rl);
> >>+   blk_rq_set_prio(rq, ioc);
> >>req_set_op_attrs(rq, op, op_flags | REQ_ALLOCED);
> >>
> >>/* init elvpriv */
> >>@@ -1656,7 +1657,8 @@ void init_request_from_bio(struct request *req, 
> >>struct bio *bio)
> >>
> >>req->errors = 0;
> >>req->__sector = bio->bi_iter.bi_sector;
> >>-   req->ioprio = bio_prio(bio);
> >>+   if (ioprio_valid(bio_prio(bio)))
> >>+   req->ioprio = bio_prio(bio);
> >
> >Should we use ioprio_best() here?  If req->ioprio and bio_prio()
> >disagree one side has explicitly asked for a higher priority.
> 
> It's a good question - but if priority has been set in the bio, it makes
> sense that that would take priority over the general setting for the
> task/io context. So I think the patch is correct as-is.
> 
> Adam, you'll want to rewrite the commit message though. A good commit
> message should explain WHY the change is made, not detail the code
> implementation of it.

Got it I'll send something out soon.

> 
> -- 
> Jens Axboe
> 

Take care,
Adam
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html