On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 10:38:58AM +0800, Coly Li wrote: > On 2019/2/7 10:26 上午, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 01:24:25AM +0100, Andre Noll wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 07, 10:43, Dave Chinner wrote > >>> File data readahead: REQ_RAHEAD > >>> Metadata readahead: REQ_META | REQ_RAHEAD > >>> > >>> drivers/md/bcache/request.c::check_should_bypass(): > >>> > >>> /* > >>> * Flag for bypass if the IO is for read-ahead or background, > >>> * unless the read-ahead request is for metadata (eg, for gfs2). > >>> */ > >>> if (bio->bi_opf & (REQ_RAHEAD|REQ_BACKGROUND) && > >>> !(bio->bi_opf & REQ_PRIO)) > >>> goto skip; > >>> > >>> bcache needs fixing - it thinks REQ_PRIO means metadata IO. That's > >>> wrong - REQ_META means it's metadata IO, and so this is a bcache > >>> bug. > >> > >> Do you think 752f66a75abad is bad (ha!) and should be reverted? > > > > Yes, that change is just broken. From include/linux/blk_types.h: > > > > __REQ_META, /* metadata io request */ > > __REQ_PRIO, /* boost priority in cfq */ > > > > > > Hi Dave, > > > i.e. REQ_META means that it is a metadata request, REQ_PRIO means it > > is a "high priority" request. Two completely different things, often > > combined, but not interchangeable. > > I found in file system metadata IO, most of time REQ_META and REQ_PRIO > are tagged together for bio, but XFS seems not use REQ_PRIO. Yes, that's correct, because we don't specifically prioritise metadata IO over data IO. > Is there any basic principle for when should these tags to be used or > not ? Yes. > e.g. If REQ_META is enough for meta data I/O, why REQ_PRIO is used > too. REQ_META is used for metadata. REQ_PRIO is used to communicate to the lower layers that the submitter considers this IO to be more important that non REQ_PRIO IO and so dispatch should be expedited. IOWs, if the filesystem considers metadata IO to be more important that user data IO, then it will use REQ_PRIO | REQ_META rather than just REQ_META. Historically speaking, REQ_PRIO was a hack for CFQ to get it to dispatch journal IO from a different thread without waiting for a time slice to expire. In the XFs world, we just said "don't use CFQ, it's fundametnally broken for highly concurrent applications" and didn't bother trying to hack around the limitations of CFQ. These days REQ_PRIO is only used by the block layer writeback throttle, but unlike bcache it considers both REQ_META and REQ_PRIO to mean the same thing. REQ_META, OTOH, is used by BFQ and blk-cgroup to detect metadata IO and don't look at REQ_PRIO at all. So, really, REQ_META is for metadata, not REQ_PRIO. REQ_PRIO looks like it should just go away. > And if REQ_PRIO is necessary, why it is not used in fs/xfs/ code ? It's not necessary, it's just an /optimisation/ that some filesystems make and some IO schedulers used to pay attention to. It looks completely redundant now. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
