linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] nfsd: issue POSIX_FADV

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <c7268db3-ee38-425a-b524-da38cceb02ff@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2025 19:28:00 -0400
From: Chuck Lever <chuck.lever@...cle.com>
To: NeilBrown <neil@...wn.name>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...nel.org>, Anna Schumaker <anna@...nel.org>,
        Olga Kornievskaia <okorniev@...hat.com>, Dai Ngo <Dai.Ngo@...cle.com>,
        Tom Talpey <tom@...pey.com>, Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...nel.org>,
        linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] nfsd: issue POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED after
 READ/WRITE/COMMIT

On 7/3/25 7:16 PM, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Jul 2025, Jeff Layton wrote:
>> Chuck and I were discussing RWF_DONTCACHE and he suggested that this
>> might be an alternate approach. My main gripe with DONTCACHE was that it
>> kicks off writeback after every WRITE operation. With NFS, we generally
>> get a COMMIT operation at some point. Allowing us to batch up writes
>> until that point has traditionally been considered better for
>> performance.
> 
> I wonder if that traditional consideration is justified, give your
> subsequent results.  The addition of COMMIT in v3 allowed us to both:
>  - delay kicking off writes
>  - not wait for writes to complete
> 
> I think the second was always primary.  Maybe we didn't consider the
> value of the first enough.
> Obviously the client caches writes and delays the start of writeback.
> Adding another delay on the serve side does not seem to have a clear
> justification.  Maybe we *should* kick-off writeback immediately.  There
> would still be opportunity for subsequent WRITE requests to be merged
> into the writeback queue.

Dave Chinner had the same thought a while back. So I've experimented
with starting writes as part of nfsd_write(). Kicking off writes,
even without waiting, is actually pretty costly, and it resulted in
worse performance.

Now that .pc_release is called /after/ the WRITE response has been sent,
though, that might be a place where kicking off writeback could be done
without charging that latency to the client.


-- 
Chuck Lever