[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <D6C85B77-17CA-4BA6-9C2C-C63A8AF613AB@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 15:24:31 +0000
From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Dave Wysochanski <dwysocha@...hat.com>
CC: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>,
Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-cachefs <linux-cachefs@...hat.com>,
"linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org>,
Linux NFS Mailing List <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
CIFS <linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org>,
"ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org" <ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
"v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 32/32] NFS: Convert readpage to readahead and use
netfs_readahead for fscache
> On Jan 25, 2021, at 8:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
>
> For Subject: s/readpage/readpages/
>
> On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 09:37:29PM +0000, David Howells wrote:
>> +int __nfs_readahead_from_fscache(struct nfs_readdesc *desc,
>> + struct readahead_control *rac)
>
> I thought you wanted it called ractl instead of rac? That's what I've
> been using in new code.
>
>> - dfprintk(FSCACHE, "NFS: nfs_getpages_from_fscache (0x%p/%u/0x%p)\n",
>> - nfs_i_fscache(inode), npages, inode);
>> + dfprintk(FSCACHE, "NFS: nfs_readahead_from_fscache (0x%p/0x%p)\n",
>> + nfs_i_fscache(inode), inode);
>
> We do have readahead_count() if this is useful information to be logging.
As a sidebar, the Linux NFS community is transitioning to tracepoints.
It would be helpful (but not completely necessary) to use tracepoints
in new code instead of printk.
>> +static inline int nfs_readahead_from_fscache(struct nfs_readdesc *desc,
>> + struct readahead_control *rac)
>> {
>> - if (NFS_I(inode)->fscache)
>> - return __nfs_readpages_from_fscache(ctx, inode, mapping, pages,
>> - nr_pages);
>> + if (NFS_I(rac->mapping->host)->fscache)
>> + return __nfs_readahead_from_fscache(desc, rac);
>> return -ENOBUFS;
>> }
>
> Not entirely sure that it's worth having the two functions separated any more.
>
>> /* attempt to read as many of the pages as possible from the cache
>> * - this returns -ENOBUFS immediately if the cookie is negative
>> */
>> - ret = nfs_readpages_from_fscache(desc.ctx, inode, mapping,
>> - pages, &nr_pages);
>> + ret = nfs_readahead_from_fscache(&desc, rac);
>> if (ret == 0)
>> goto read_complete; /* all pages were read */
>>
>> nfs_pageio_init_read(&desc.pgio, inode, false,
>> &nfs_async_read_completion_ops);
>>
>> - ret = read_cache_pages(mapping, pages, readpage_async_filler, &desc);
>> + while ((page = readahead_page(rac))) {
>> + ret = readpage_async_filler(&desc, page);
>> + put_page(page);
>> + }
>
> I thought with the new API we didn't need to do this kind of thing
> any more? ie no matter whether fscache is configured in or not, it'll
> submit the I/Os.
--
Chuck Lever
Powered by blists - more mailing lists