Message-ID: <CANP1eJEbDusq_Gda35dGKiacC+2tbvb_bQEEHpi6PmgnNoWDFw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 27 Mar 2015 11:21:26 -0400
From:	Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-aio@...ck.org" <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
	Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Volker Lendecke <Volker.Lendecke@...net.de>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
	Michael Kerrisk <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
	linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 0/5] vfs: Non-blockling buffered fs read (page cache only)

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Andrew Morton
<akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Mar 2015 14:27:10 -0400 Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com> wrote:
>
>> This patchset introduces two new syscalls preadv2 and pwritev2. They are the
>> same syscalls as preadv and pwrite but with a flag argument. Additionally,
>> preadv2 implements an extra RWF_NONBLOCK flag.
>
> I still don't understand why pwritev() exists.  We discussed this last
> time but it seems nothing has changed.  I'm not seeing here an adequate
> description of why it exists nor a justification for its addition.

In the "Forward Looking" section there's a description of why we want
pwritev2 and what we're doing to do with it in the future. The goal is
to have two additional flags for those calls RWF_DSYNC and
RWF_NONBLOCK. As Christop mentioned modern network filesystem
protocols have per operation sync flags. And there's use cases for
guaranteeing of write dirtying pages without triggering a writeout.

The consensus from our discussion at LSF fs tack was 1) that both
preadv and pwritev should have flags to begin with, inline with the
API syscall design guidelines 2) if we're adding preadv2 we should add
a matching pwritev2 3) especially that we plan on introducing further
flags to preadv in the near future.

>
> Also, why are we adding new syscalls instead of using O_NONBLOCK?  I
> think this might have been discussed before, but the changelogs haven't
> been updated to reflect it - please do so.

In a much earlier patch series we already had the discussion on why we
can't use O_NONBLOCK for regular files. It comes down to that it
breaks some userspace applications. Link for further reference to the
thread:

https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/9/22/294
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.aio.general/4242

I will include the background in the next patchset.

>
>> The RWF_NONBLOCK flag in preadv2 introduces an ability to perform a
>> non-blocking read from regular files in buffered IO mode. This works by only
>> for those filesystems that have data in the page cache.
>>
>> We discussed these changes at this year's LSF/MM summit in Boston. More details
>> on the Samba use case, the numbers, and presentation is available at this link:
>> https://lists.samba.org/archive/samba-technical/2015-March/106290.html
>
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3maCn0jCvYncndGbXJKbGlhejQ/view?usp=sharing
> talks about "sync" but I can't find a description of what this actually
> is.  It appears to perform better than anything else?

Sync is the samba mode where we do not use threadpool just service the
IO request in the network thread. In a single client case if
everything is in the page cache we are aiming to be as close in
latency as sync. The reason it isn't is because the threadpool path in
samba has some additional over head. I did bring it up to the Samba
folks on their technical mailing list, they can investigate it further
if they want it.

It's impractical to use Sync anywhere we have modern SMB3 clients that
can multiplex > 100 operations over a single connection. Head-of-line
blocking would kill performance, why we need the threadpool. With the
threadpool we increase the mean (and tail) latency even if the data is
handy and we can answer it right away.

The cifs FIO engine that I wrote
https://github.com/mtanski/fio/commits/samba does not let us multiplex
multiple SMB3 request. That's not exposed in the samba client
libraries.

>
>
>> Background:
>>
>>  Using a threadpool to emulate non-blocking operations on regular buffered
>>  files is a common pattern today (samba, libuv, etc...) Applications split the
>>  work between network bound threads (epoll) and IO threadpool. Not every
>>  application can use sendfile syscall (TLS / post-processing).
>>
>>  This common pattern leads to increased request latency. Latency can be due to
>>  additional synchronization between the threads or fast (cached data) request
>>  stuck behind slow request (large / uncached data).
>>
>>  The preadv2 syscall with RWF_NONBLOCK lets userspace applications bypass
>>  enqueuing operation in the threadpool if it's already available in the
>>  pagecache.
>
> A thing which bugs me about pread2() is that it is specifically
> tailored to applications which are able to use a partial read result.
> ie, by sending it over the network.
>
> But it is not very useful for the class of applications which require
> that the entire read be completed before they can proceed with using
> the data.  Such applications will have to run pread2(), see the short
> result, save away the partial data, perform some IO then fetch the
> remaining data then proceed.  By this time, the original partially read
> data may have fallen out of CPU cache (or we're on a different CPU) and
> the data will need to be fetched into cache a second time.
>
> Such applications would be better served if they were able to query for
> pagecache presence _before_ doing the big copy_to_user(), so they can
> ensure that all the data is in pagecache before copying it in.  ie:
> fincore(), perhaps supported by a synchronous POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED.
>
> And of course fincore could be used by Samba etc to avoid blocking on
> reads.  It wouldn't perform quite as well as pread2(), but I bet it's
> good enough.

The RWF_NONBLOCK is aimed primarily at network applications. Some of
them can send a partial result down the network, and then they can
enqueue the rest in the threadpool. For applications that need the
whole value, they clearly have to wait to read in the rest, but it's
behavior that are opting into.

>
> Bottom line: with pread2() there's still a need for fincore(), but with
> fincore() there probably isn't a need for pread2().

I see fincore() and preadv2() with RWF_NONBLOCK as tangential
syscalls. You can implement a poor man's RWF_NONBLOCK in userspace
with fincore() but not all of us are fine with it's racy nature or
requiring 2 syscalls in the best case.

>
> And (again) we've discussed this before, but the patchset gets resent
> as if nothing had happened.
>
>
> And I'm doubtful about claims that it absolutely has to be non-blocking
> 100% of the time.  I bet that 99.99% is good enough.  A fincore()
> option to run mark_page_accessed() against present pages would help
> with the race-with-reclaim situation.



-- 
Milosz Tanski
CTO
16 East 34th Street, 15th floor
New York, NY 10016

p: 646-253-9055
e: milosz@...in.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists