@@ -578,7 +578,8 @@ void bfq_bfqq_move(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
bfqg_and_blkg_get(bfqg);
if (bfq_bfqq_busy(bfqq)) {
- bfq_pos_tree_add_move(bfqd, bfqq);
+ if (unlikely(!bfqd->nonrot_with_queueing))
+ bfq_pos_tree_add_move(bfqd, bfqq);
bfq_activate_bfqq(bfqd, bfqq);
}
@@ -595,7 +595,16 @@ static bool bfq_too_late_for_merging(struct bfq_queue *bfqq)
bfq_merge_time_limit);
}
-void bfq_pos_tree_add_move(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq)
+/*
+ * The following function is not marked as __cold because it is
+ * actually cold, but for the same performance goal described in the
+ * comments on the likely() at the beginning of
+ * bfq_setup_cooperator(). Unexpectedly, to reach an even lower
+ * execution time for the case where this function is not invoked, we
+ * had to add an unlikely() in each involved if().
+ */
+void __cold
+bfq_pos_tree_add_move(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq)
{
struct rb_node **p, *parent;
struct bfq_queue *__bfqq;
@@ -1849,8 +1858,9 @@ static void bfq_add_request(struct request *rq)
/*
* Adjust priority tree position, if next_rq changes.
+ * See comments on bfq_pos_tree_add_move() for the unlikely().
*/
- if (prev != bfqq->next_rq)
+ if (unlikely(!bfqd->nonrot_with_queueing && prev != bfqq->next_rq))
bfq_pos_tree_add_move(bfqd, bfqq);
if (!bfq_bfqq_busy(bfqq)) /* switching to busy ... */
@@ -1990,7 +2000,9 @@ static void bfq_remove_request(struct request_queue *q,
bfqq->pos_root = NULL;
}
} else {
- bfq_pos_tree_add_move(bfqd, bfqq);
+ /* see comments on bfq_pos_tree_add_move() for the unlikely() */
+ if (unlikely(!bfqd->nonrot_with_queueing))
+ bfq_pos_tree_add_move(bfqd, bfqq);
}
if (rq->cmd_flags & REQ_META)
@@ -2075,7 +2087,12 @@ static void bfq_request_merged(struct request_queue *q, struct request *req,
*/
if (prev != bfqq->next_rq) {
bfq_updated_next_req(bfqd, bfqq);
- bfq_pos_tree_add_move(bfqd, bfqq);
+ /*
+ * See comments on bfq_pos_tree_add_move() for
+ * the unlikely().
+ */
+ if (unlikely(!bfqd->nonrot_with_queueing))
+ bfq_pos_tree_add_move(bfqd, bfqq);
}
}
}
@@ -2357,6 +2374,46 @@ bfq_setup_cooperator(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq,
{
struct bfq_queue *in_service_bfqq, *new_bfqq;
+ /*
+ * Do not perform queue merging if the device is non
+ * rotational and performs internal queueing. In fact, such a
+ * device reaches a high speed through internal parallelism
+ * and pipelining. This means that, to reach a high
+ * throughput, it must have many requests enqueued at the same
+ * time. But, in this configuration, the internal scheduling
+ * algorithm of the device does exactly the job of queue
+ * merging: it reorders requests so as to obtain as much as
+ * possible a sequential I/O pattern. As a consequence, with
+ * the workload generated by processes doing interleaved I/O,
+ * the throughput reached by the device is likely to be the
+ * same, with and without queue merging.
+ *
+ * Disabling merging also provides a remarkable benefit in
+ * terms of throughput. Merging tends to make many workloads
+ * artificially more uneven, because of shared queues
+ * remaining non empty for incomparably more time than
+ * non-merged queues. This may accentuate workload
+ * asymmetries. For example, if one of the queues in a set of
+ * merged queues has a higher weight than a normal queue, then
+ * the shared queue may inherit such a high weight and, by
+ * staying almost always active, may force BFQ to perform I/O
+ * plugging most of the time. This evidently makes it harder
+ * for BFQ to let the device reach a high throughput.
+ *
+ * Finally, the likely() macro below is not used because one
+ * of the two branches is more likely than the other, but to
+ * have the code path after the following if() executed as
+ * fast as possible for the case of a non rotational device
+ * with queueing. We want it because this is the fastest kind
+ * of device. On the opposite end, the likely() may lengthen
+ * the execution time of BFQ for the case of slower devices
+ * (rotational or at least without queueing). But in this case
+ * the execution time of BFQ matters very little, if not at
+ * all.
+ */
+ if (likely(bfqd->nonrot_with_queueing))
+ return NULL;
+
/*
* Prevent bfqq from being merged if it has been created too
* long ago. The idea is that true cooperating processes, and
@@ -2986,8 +3043,10 @@ static void __bfq_bfqq_expire(struct bfq_data *bfqd, struct bfq_queue *bfqq)
bfq_requeue_bfqq(bfqd, bfqq, true);
/*
* Resort priority tree of potential close cooperators.
+ * See comments on bfq_pos_tree_add_move() for the unlikely().
*/
- bfq_pos_tree_add_move(bfqd, bfqq);
+ if (unlikely(!bfqd->nonrot_with_queueing))
+ bfq_pos_tree_add_move(bfqd, bfqq);
}
/*
@@ -5051,6 +5110,9 @@ static void bfq_update_hw_tag(struct bfq_data *bfqd)
bfqd->hw_tag = bfqd->max_rq_in_driver > BFQ_HW_QUEUE_THRESHOLD;
bfqd->max_rq_in_driver = 0;
bfqd->hw_tag_samples = 0;
+
+ bfqd->nonrot_with_queueing =
+ blk_queue_nonrot(bfqd->queue) && bfqd->hw_tag;
}
static void bfq_completed_request(struct bfq_queue *bfqq, struct bfq_data *bfqd)
@@ -5882,6 +5944,7 @@ static int bfq_init_queue(struct request_queue *q, struct elevator_type *e)
INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&bfqd->burst_list);
bfqd->hw_tag = -1;
+ bfqd->nonrot_with_queueing = blk_queue_nonrot(bfqd->queue);
bfqd->bfq_max_budget = bfq_default_max_budget;
@@ -497,6 +497,9 @@ struct bfq_data {
/* number of requests dispatched and waiting for completion */
int rq_in_driver;
+ /* true if the device is non rotational and performs queueing */
+ bool nonrot_with_queueing;
+
/*
* Maximum number of requests in driver in the last
* @hw_tag_samples completed requests.