[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHpGcMKwQCFOGgmA4pQBLNL8Q-uoX2AGBLsW19aRrv0d_UDrcw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2021 23:49:52 +0200
From: Andreas Grünbacher <andreas.gruenbacher@...il.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
cluster-devel <cluster-devel@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 16/19] iomap: Add done_before argument to iomap_dio_rw
Am Fr., 27. Aug. 2021 um 23:33 Uhr schrieb Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org>:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 10:15:11PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 8:30 PM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 27, 2021 at 06:49:23PM +0200, Andreas Gruenbacher wrote:
> > > > Add a done_before argument to iomap_dio_rw that indicates how much of
> > > > the request has already been transferred. When the request succeeds, we
> > > > report that done_before additional bytes were tranferred. This is
> > > > useful for finishing a request asynchronously when part of the request
> > > > has already been completed synchronously.
> > > >
> > > > We'll use that to allow iomap_dio_rw to be used with page faults
> > > > disabled: when a page fault occurs while submitting a request, we
> > > > synchronously complete the part of the request that has already been
> > > > submitted. The caller can then take care of the page fault and call
> > > > iomap_dio_rw again for the rest of the request, passing in the number of
> > > > bytes already tranferred.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agruenba@...hat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > fs/btrfs/file.c | 5 +++--
> > > > fs/ext4/file.c | 5 +++--
> > > > fs/gfs2/file.c | 4 ++--
> > > > fs/iomap/direct-io.c | 11 ++++++++---
> > > > fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 6 +++---
> > > > fs/zonefs/super.c | 4 ++--
> > > > include/linux/iomap.h | 4 ++--
> > > > 7 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > >
> > > <snip to the interesting parts>
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
> > > > index ba88fe51b77a..dcf9a2b4381f 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
> > > > @@ -31,6 +31,7 @@ struct iomap_dio {
> > > > atomic_t ref;
> > > > unsigned flags;
> > > > int error;
> > > > + size_t done_before;
> > > > bool wait_for_completion;
> > > >
> > > > union {
> > > > @@ -126,6 +127,9 @@ ssize_t iomap_dio_complete(struct iomap_dio *dio)
> > > > if (ret > 0 && (dio->flags & IOMAP_DIO_NEED_SYNC))
> > > > ret = generic_write_sync(iocb, ret);
> > > >
> > > > + if (ret > 0)
> > > > + ret += dio->done_before;
> > >
> > > Pardon my ignorance since this is the first time I've had a crack at
> > > this patchset, but why is it necessary to carry the "bytes copied"
> > > count from the /previous/ iomap_dio_rw call all the way through to dio
> > > completion of the current call?
> >
> > Consider the following situation:
> >
> > * A user submits an asynchronous read request.
> >
> > * The first page of the buffer is in memory, but the following
> > pages are not. This isn't uncommon for consecutive reads
> > into freshly allocated memory.
> >
> > * iomap_dio_rw writes into the first page. Then it
> > hits the next page which is missing, so it returns a partial
> > result, synchronously.
> >
> > * We then fault in the remaining pages and call iomap_dio_rw
> > for the rest of the request.
> >
> > * The rest of the request completes asynchronously.
> >
> > Does that answer your question?
>
> No, because you totally ignored the second question:
>
> If the directio operation succeeds even partially and the PARTIAL flag
> is set, won't that push the iov iter ahead by however many bytes
> completed?
Yes, exactly as it should.
> We already finished the IO for the first page, so the second attempt
> should pick up where it left off, i.e. the second page.
Yes, so what's the question?
Thanks,
Andreas
Powered by blists - more mailing lists