block: mq-deadline: rename sort_list to sort_rb
Commit Message
From: lipeifeng <lipeifeng@oppo.com>
Mq-deadline would store request in list:fifo_list and
rb_tree:sort_list, and sort_list should be renamed to
sort_rb which is beneficial for understanding.
Signed-off-by: lipeifeng <lipeifeng@oppo.com>
---
block/mq-deadline.c | 18 +++++++++---------
1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
Comments
On 7/3/23 21:06, lipeifeng@oppo.com wrote:
> Mq-deadline would store request in list:fifo_list and
> rb_tree:sort_list, and sort_list should be renamed to
> sort_rb which is beneficial for understanding.
Huh? I think this patch makes the code less readable instead of more
readable ...
Bart.
>> Mq-deadline would store request in list:fifo_list and
>> rb_tree:sort_list, and sort_list should be renamed to sort_rb which is
>> beneficial for understanding.
>Huh? I think this patch makes the code less readable instead of more readable ...
Huh? Maybe we had different opinions about it, I thinks the essence of this word is 'sort'
So that reader can get the meaning of it easily. And in my mind, *_rb is more reasonable
for rb_root ratherthan *_list for reader.
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
发送时间: 2023年7月4日 22:13
收件人: 李培锋(wink) <lipeifeng@oppo.com>; axboe@kernel.dk
抄送: linux-block@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; 张诗明(Simon Zhang) <zhangshiming@oppo.com>; 郭健 <guojian@oppo.com>
主题: Re: [PATCH] block: mq-deadline: rename sort_list to sort_rb
On 7/3/23 21:06, lipeifeng@oppo.com wrote:
> Mq-deadline would store request in list:fifo_list and
> rb_tree:sort_list, and sort_list should be renamed to sort_rb which is
> beneficial for understanding.
Huh? I think this patch makes the code less readable instead of more readable ...
Bart.
>>> Mq-deadline would store request in list:fifo_list and
>>> rb_tree:sort_list, and sort_list should be renamed to sort_rb which
>>> is beneficial for understanding.
>>Huh? I think this patch makes the code less readable instead of more readable ...
>Huh? Maybe we had different opinions about it, I thinks the essence of this word is 'sort'
>So that reader can get the meaning of it easily. And in my mind, *_rb is more reasonable for rb_root ratherthan *_list for reader.
Hi Sir：
Should it be merged for the above reason? Hope for your reply, thanks.
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: 李培锋(wink)
发送时间: 2023年7月5日 8:31
收件人: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>; axboe@kernel.dk
抄送: linux-block@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; 张诗明(Simon Zhang) <zhangshiming@oppo.com>; 郭健 <guojian@oppo.com>
主题: 回复: [PATCH] block: mq-deadline: rename sort_list to sort_rb
>> Mq-deadline would store request in list:fifo_list and
>> rb_tree:sort_list, and sort_list should be renamed to sort_rb which
>> is beneficial for understanding.
>Huh? I think this patch makes the code less readable instead of more readable ...
Huh? Maybe we had different opinions about it, I thinks the essence of this word is 'sort'
So that reader can get the meaning of it easily. And in my mind, *_rb is more reasonable for rb_root ratherthan *_list for reader.
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
发送时间: 2023年7月4日 22:13
收件人: 李培锋(wink) <lipeifeng@oppo.com>; axboe@kernel.dk
抄送: linux-block@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; 张诗明(Simon Zhang) <zhangshiming@oppo.com>; 郭健 <guojian@oppo.com>
主题: Re: [PATCH] block: mq-deadline: rename sort_list to sort_rb
On 7/3/23 21:06, lipeifeng@oppo.com wrote:
> Mq-deadline would store request in list:fifo_list and
> rb_tree:sort_list, and sort_list should be renamed to sort_rb which is
> beneficial for understanding.
Huh? I think this patch makes the code less readable instead of more readable ...
Bart.
On 7/6/23 3:27?AM, ???(wink) wrote:
>>>> Mq-deadline would store request in list:fifo_list and
>>>> rb_tree:sort_list, and sort_list should be renamed to sort_rb which
>>>> is beneficial for understanding.
>
>>> Huh? I think this patch makes the code less readable instead of more readable ...
>
>> Huh? Maybe we had different opinions about it, I thinks the essence of this word is 'sort'
>> So that reader can get the meaning of it easily. And in my mind, *_rb is more reasonable for rb_root ratherthan *_list for reader.
>
> Hi Sir?
> Should it be merged for the above reason? Hope for your reply, thanks.
No, the patch makes no sense. I agree with Bart that it doesn't make it
any more readable, in fact it's worse. We have a sort and fifo list, the
backing data structure isn't that exciting by itself.
>>>>> Mq-deadline would store request in list:fifo_list and
>>>>> rb_tree:sort_list, and sort_list should be renamed to sort_rb which
>>>>> is beneficial for understanding.
>>
>>>> Huh? I think this patch makes the code less readable instead of more readable ...
>>
>>> Huh? Maybe we had different opinions about it, I thinks the essence of this word is 'sort'
>>> So that reader can get the meaning of it easily. And in my mind, *_rb is more reasonable for rb_root ratherthan *_list for reader.
>>
>> Hi Sir?
>> Should it be merged for the above reason? Hope for your reply, thanks.
>No, the patch makes no sense. I agree with Bart that it doesn't make it any more readable, in fact it's worse. We have a sort and fifo list, the backing data structure isn't that exciting by itself.
That is okay, thank you for your reply and respect both of you.
-----邮件原件-----
发件人: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
发送时间: 2023年7月6日 22:05
收件人: 李培锋(wink) <lipeifeng@oppo.com>
抄送: linux-block@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; 张诗明(Simon Zhang) <zhangshiming@oppo.com>; 郭健 <guojian@oppo.com>; Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
主题: Re: 回复: [PATCH] block: mq-deadline: rename sort_list to sort_rb
On 7/6/23 3:27?AM, ???(wink) wrote:
>>>> Mq-deadline would store request in list:fifo_list and
>>>> rb_tree:sort_list, and sort_list should be renamed to sort_rb which
>>>> is beneficial for understanding.
>
>>> Huh? I think this patch makes the code less readable instead of more readable ...
>
>> Huh? Maybe we had different opinions about it, I thinks the essence of this word is 'sort'
>> So that reader can get the meaning of it easily. And in my mind, *_rb is more reasonable for rb_root ratherthan *_list for reader.
>
> Hi Sir?
> Should it be merged for the above reason? Hope for your reply, thanks.
No, the patch makes no sense. I agree with Bart that it doesn't make it any more readable, in fact it's worse. We have a sort and fifo list, the backing data structure isn't that exciting by itself.
--
Jens Axboe
@@ -68,11 +68,11 @@ struct io_stats_per_prio {
/*
* Deadline scheduler data per I/O priority (enum dd_prio). Requests are
- * present on both sort_list[] and fifo_list[].
+ * present on both sort_rb[] and fifo_list[].
*/
struct dd_per_prio {
struct list_head dispatch;
- struct rb_root sort_list[DD_DIR_COUNT];
+ struct rb_root sort_rb[DD_DIR_COUNT];
struct list_head fifo_list[DD_DIR_COUNT];
/* Position of the most recently dispatched request. */
sector_t latest_pos[DD_DIR_COUNT];
@@ -116,7 +116,7 @@ static const enum dd_prio ioprio_class_to_prio[] = {
static inline struct rb_root *
deadline_rb_root(struct dd_per_prio *per_prio, struct request *rq)
{
- return &per_prio->sort_list[rq_data_dir(rq)];
+ return &per_prio->sort_rb[rq_data_dir(rq)];
}
/*
@@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ deadline_latter_request(struct request *rq)
static inline struct request *deadline_from_pos(struct dd_per_prio *per_prio,
enum dd_data_dir data_dir, sector_t pos)
{
- struct rb_node *node = per_prio->sort_list[data_dir].rb_node;
+ struct rb_node *node = per_prio->sort_rb[data_dir].rb_node;
struct request *rq, *res = NULL;
if (!node)
@@ -477,7 +477,7 @@ static struct request *__dd_dispatch_request(struct deadline_data *dd,
*/
if (!list_empty(&per_prio->fifo_list[DD_READ])) {
- BUG_ON(RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&per_prio->sort_list[DD_READ]));
+ BUG_ON(RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&per_prio->sort_rb[DD_READ]));
if (deadline_fifo_request(dd, per_prio, DD_WRITE) &&
(dd->starved++ >= dd->writes_starved))
@@ -494,7 +494,7 @@ static struct request *__dd_dispatch_request(struct deadline_data *dd,
if (!list_empty(&per_prio->fifo_list[DD_WRITE])) {
dispatch_writes:
- BUG_ON(RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&per_prio->sort_list[DD_WRITE]));
+ BUG_ON(RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&per_prio->sort_rb[DD_WRITE]));
dd->starved = 0;
@@ -711,8 +711,8 @@ static int dd_init_sched(struct request_queue *q, struct elevator_type *e)
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&per_prio->dispatch);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&per_prio->fifo_list[DD_READ]);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&per_prio->fifo_list[DD_WRITE]);
- per_prio->sort_list[DD_READ] = RB_ROOT;
- per_prio->sort_list[DD_WRITE] = RB_ROOT;
+ per_prio->sort_rb[DD_READ] = RB_ROOT;
+ per_prio->sort_rb[DD_WRITE] = RB_ROOT;
}
dd->fifo_expire[DD_READ] = read_expire;
dd->fifo_expire[DD_WRITE] = write_expire;
@@ -752,7 +752,7 @@ static int dd_request_merge(struct request_queue *q, struct request **rq,
if (!dd->front_merges)
return ELEVATOR_NO_MERGE;
- __rq = elv_rb_find(&per_prio->sort_list[bio_data_dir(bio)], sector);
+ __rq = elv_rb_find(&per_prio->sort_rb[bio_data_dir(bio)], sector);
if (__rq) {
BUG_ON(sector != blk_rq_pos(__rq));