Message-ID: <20260127020944.GF5900@frogsfrogsfrogs>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2026 18:09:44 -0800
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To: Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@...il.com>
Cc: miklos@...redi.hu, bernd@...ernd.com, neal@...pa.dev,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/31] fuse: use an unrestricted backing device with
 iomap pagecache io

On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 05:35:05PM -0800, Joanne Koong wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 3:55 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 02:03:35PM -0800, Joanne Koong wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2025 at 5:49 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org>
> > > >
> > > > With iomap support turned on for the pagecache, the kernel issues
> > > > writeback to directly to block devices and we no longer have to push all
> > > > those pages through the fuse device to userspace.  Therefore, we don't
> > > > need the tight dirty limits (~1M) that are used for regular fuse.  This
> > > > dramatically increases the performance of fuse's pagecache IO.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >  fs/fuse/file_iomap.c |   21 +++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >  1 file changed, 21 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/fuse/file_iomap.c b/fs/fuse/file_iomap.c
> > > > index 0bae356045638b..a9bacaa0991afa 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/fuse/file_iomap.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/fuse/file_iomap.c
> > > > @@ -713,6 +713,27 @@ const struct fuse_backing_ops fuse_iomap_backing_ops = {
> > > >  void fuse_iomap_mount(struct fuse_mount *fm)
> > > >  {
> > > >         struct fuse_conn *fc = fm->fc;
> > > > +       struct super_block *sb = fm->sb;
> > > > +       struct backing_dev_info *old_bdi = sb->s_bdi;
> > > > +       char *suffix = sb->s_bdev ? "-fuseblk" : "-fuse";
> > > > +       int res;
> > > > +
> > > > +       /*
> > > > +        * sb->s_bdi points to the initial private bdi.  However, we want to
> > > > +        * redirect it to a new private bdi with default dirty and readahead
> > > > +        * settings because iomap writeback won't be pushing a ton of dirty
> > > > +        * data through the fuse device.  If this fails we fall back to the
> > > > +        * initial fuse bdi.
> > > > +        */
> > > > +       sb->s_bdi = &noop_backing_dev_info;
> > > > +       res = super_setup_bdi_name(sb, "%u:%u%s.iomap", MAJOR(fc->dev),
> > > > +                                  MINOR(fc->dev), suffix);
> > > > +       if (res) {
> > > > +               sb->s_bdi = old_bdi;
> > > > +       } else {
> > > > +               bdi_unregister(old_bdi);
> > > > +               bdi_put(old_bdi);
> > > > +       }
> > >
> > > Maybe I'm missing something here, but isn't sb->s_bdi already set to
> > > noop_backing_dev_info when fuse_iomap_mount() is called?
> > > fuse_fill_super() -> fuse_fill_super_common() -> fuse_bdi_init() does
> > > this already before the fuse_iomap_mount() call, afaict.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > > I think what we need to do is just unset BDI_CAP_STRICTLIMIT and
> > > adjust the bdi max ratio?
> >
> > That's sufficient to undo the effects of fuse_bdi_init, yes.  However
> > the BDI gets created with the name "$major:$minor{-fuseblk}" and there
> > are "management" scripts that try to tweak fuse BDIs for better
> > performance.
> >
> > I don't want some dumb script to mismanage a fuse-iomap filesystem
> > because it can't tell the difference, so I create a new bdi with the
> > name "$major:$minor.iomap" to make it obvious.  But super_setup_bdi_name
> > gets cranky if s_bdi isn't set to noop and we don't want to fail a mount
> > here due to ENOMEM so ... I implemented this weird switcheroo code.
> 
> I see. It might be useful to copy/paste this into the commit message
> just for added context. I don't see a better way of doing it than what
> you have in this patch then since we rely on the init reply to know
> whether iomap should be used or not...

I'll do that.  I will also add that as soon as any BDI is created, it
will be exposed to userspace in sysfs.  That means that running the code
from fuse_bdi_init in reverse will not necessarily produce the same
results as a freshly created BDI.

> If the new bdi setup fails, I wonder if the mount should just fail
> entirely then. That seems better to me than letting it succeed with

Err, which new bdi setup?  If fuse-iomap can't create a new BDI, it will
set s_bdi back to the old one and move on.  You'll get degraded
performance, but that's not the end of the world.

> strictlimiting enforced, especially since large folios will be enabled
> for fuse iomap. [1] has some numbers for the performance degradations
> I saw for writes with strictlimiting on and large folios enabled.

If fuse_bdi_init can't set up a bdi it will fail the mount.

That said... from reading [1], if strictlimiting is enabled with large
folios, then can we figure out what is the effective max folio size and
lower it to that?

> Speaking of strictlimiting though, from a policy standpoint if we
> think strictlimiting is needed in general in fuse (there's a thread
> from last year [1] about removing strict limiting), then I think that

(did you mean [2] here?)

> would need to apply to iomap as well, at least for unprivileged
> servers.

iomap requires a privileged server, FWIW.

> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/CAJnrk1bwat_r4+pmhaWH-ThAi+zoAJFwmJG65ANj1Zv0O0s4_A@mail.gmail.com/
> [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20251010150113.GC6174@frogsfrogsfrogs/T/#ma34ff5ae338a83f8b2e946d7e5332ea835fa0ff6
> 
> >
> > > This is more of a nit, but I think it'd also be nice if we
> > > swapped the ordering of this patch with the previous one enabling
> > > large folios, so that large folios gets enabled only when all the bdi
> > > stuff for it is ready.
> >
> > Will do, thanks for reading these patches!
> >
> > Also note that I've changed this part of the patchset quite a lot since
> > this posting; iomap configuration is now a completely separate fuse
> > command that gets triggered after the FUSE_INIT reply is received.
> 
> Great, I'll look at your upstream tree then for this part.

Ok.

--D

> Thanks,
> Joanne
> 
> >
> > --D
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Joanne
> > >
> > > >
> > > >         /*
> > > >          * Enable syncfs for iomap fuse servers so that we can send a final
> > > >
> > >
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists