[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zivu0gzb4aiazSNu@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 19:13:38 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFCv3 7/7] iomap: Optimize data access patterns for filesystems
with indirect mappings
On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 11:25:25PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> writes:
> > The approach I suggested was to initialise read_bytes_pending to
> > folio_size() at the start. Then subtract off blocksize for each
> > uptodate block, whether you find it already uptodate, or as the
> > completion handler runs.
> >
> > Is there a reason that doesn't work?
>
> That is what this patch series does right. The current patch does work
> as far as my testing goes.
>
> For e.g. This is what initializes the r_b_p for the first time when
> ifs->r_b_p is 0.
>
> + loff_t to_read = min_t(loff_t, iter->len - offset,
> + folio_size(folio) - offset_in_folio(folio, orig_pos));
> <..>
> + if (!ifs->read_bytes_pending)
> + ifs->read_bytes_pending = to_read;
>
>
> Then this is where we subtract r_b_p for blocks which are uptodate.
> + padjust = pos - orig_pos;
> + ifs->read_bytes_pending -= padjust;
>
>
> This is when we adjust r_b_p when we directly zero the folio.
> if (iomap_block_needs_zeroing(iter, pos)) {
> + if (ifs) {
> + spin_lock_irq(&ifs->state_lock);
> + ifs->read_bytes_pending -= plen;
> + if (!ifs->read_bytes_pending)
> + rbp_finished = true;
> + spin_unlock_irq(&ifs->state_lock);
> + }
>
> But as you see this requires surgery throughout read paths. What if
> we add a state flag to ifs only for BH_BOUNDARY. Maybe that could
> result in a more simplified approach?
> Because all we require is to know whether the folio should be unlocked
> or not at the time of completion.
>
> Do you think we should try that part or you think the current approach
> looks ok?
You've really made life hard for yourself. I had something more like
this in mind. I may have missed a few places that need to be changed,
but this should update read_bytes_pending everwhere that we set bits
in the uptodate bitmap, so it should be right?
diff --git a/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c b/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c
index 41c8f0c68ef5..f87ca8ee4d19 100644
--- a/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c
+++ b/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c
@@ -79,6 +79,7 @@ static void iomap_set_range_uptodate(struct folio *folio, size_t off,
if (ifs) {
spin_lock_irqsave(&ifs->state_lock, flags);
uptodate = ifs_set_range_uptodate(folio, ifs, off, len);
+ ifs->read_bytes_pending -= len;
spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ifs->state_lock, flags);
}
@@ -208,6 +209,8 @@ static struct iomap_folio_state *ifs_alloc(struct inode *inode,
spin_lock_init(&ifs->state_lock);
if (folio_test_uptodate(folio))
bitmap_set(ifs->state, 0, nr_blocks);
+ else
+ ifs->read_bytes_pending = folio_size(folio);
if (folio_test_dirty(folio))
bitmap_set(ifs->state, nr_blocks, nr_blocks);
folio_attach_private(folio, ifs);
@@ -396,12 +399,6 @@ static loff_t iomap_readpage_iter(const struct iomap_iter *iter,
}
ctx->cur_folio_in_bio = true;
- if (ifs) {
- spin_lock_irq(&ifs->state_lock);
- ifs->read_bytes_pending += plen;
- spin_unlock_irq(&ifs->state_lock);
- }
-
sector = iomap_sector(iomap, pos);
if (!ctx->bio ||
bio_end_sector(ctx->bio) != sector ||
Powered by blists - more mailing lists