On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 12:26:42PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 07:54:58AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 05, 2019 at 04:08:43PM +0000, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2019-08-05 at 09:43 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 05:00:45PM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> > > > > From: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > This helps filesystems to perform tasks on the bio while
> > > > > submitting for I/O. Since btrfs requires the position
> > > > > we are working on, pass pos to iomap_dio_submit_bio()
> > > > >
> > > > > The correct place for submit_io() is not page_ops. Would it
> > > > > better to rename the structure to something like iomap_io_ops
> > > > > or put it directly under struct iomap?
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > fs/iomap/direct-io.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
> > > > > include/linux/iomap.h | 1 +
> > > > > 2 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
> > > > > index 5279029c7a3c..a802e66bf11f 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
> > > > > @@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ int iomap_dio_iopoll(struct kiocb *kiocb, bool
> > > > > spin)
> > > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(iomap_dio_iopoll);
> > > > >
> > > > > static void iomap_dio_submit_bio(struct iomap_dio *dio, struct
> > > > > iomap *iomap,
> > > > > - struct bio *bio)
> > > > > + struct bio *bio, loff_t pos)
> > > > > {
> > > > > atomic_inc(&dio->ref);
> > > > >
> > > > > @@ -67,7 +67,13 @@ static void iomap_dio_submit_bio(struct
> > > > > iomap_dio *dio, struct iomap *iomap,
> > > > > bio_set_polled(bio, dio->iocb);
> > > > >
> > > > > dio->submit.last_queue = bdev_get_queue(iomap->bdev);
> > > > > - dio->submit.cookie = submit_bio(bio);
> > > > > + if (iomap->page_ops && iomap->page_ops->submit_io) {
> > > > > + iomap->page_ops->submit_io(bio, file_inode(dio-
> > > > > >iocb->ki_filp),
> > > > > + pos);
> > > > > + dio->submit.cookie = BLK_QC_T_NONE;
> > > > > + } else {
> > > > > + dio->submit.cookie = submit_bio(bio);
> > > > > + }
> > > >
> > > > I don't really like this at all. Apart from the fact it doesn't work
> > > > with block device polling (RWF_HIPRI), the iomap architecture is
> > >
> > > That can be added, no? Should be relayed when we clone the bio.
> >
> > No idea how that all is supposed to work when you split a single bio
> > into multiple bios. I'm pretty sure the iomap code is broken for
> > that case, too - Jens was silent on how to fix other than to say
> > "it wasn't important so we didn't care to make sure it worked". So
> > it's not clear to me exactly how block polling is supposed to work
> > when a an IO needs to be split into multiple submissions...
> >
> > > > supposed to resolve the file offset -> block device + LBA mapping
> > > > completely up front and so all that remains to be done is build and
> > > > submit the bio(s) to the block device.
> > > >
> > > > What I see here is a hack to work around the fact that btrfs has
> > > > implemented both file data transformations and device mapping layer
> > > > functionality as a filesystem layer between file data bio building
> > > > and device bio submission. And as the btrfs file data mapping
> > > > (->iomap_begin) is completely unaware that there is further block
> > > > mapping to be done before block device bio submission, any generic
> > > > code that btrfs uses requires special IO submission hooks rather
> > > > than just calling submit_bio().
> > > >
> > > > I'm not 100% sure what the solution here is, but the one thing we
> > > > must resist is turning the iomap code into a mess of custom hooks
> > > > that only one filesystem uses. We've been taught this lesson time
> > > > and time again - the iomap infrastructure exists because stuff like
> > > > bufferheads and the old direct IO code ended up so full of special
> > > > case code that it ossified and became unmodifiable and
> > > > unmaintainable.
> > > >
> > > > We do not want to go down that path again.
> > > >
> > > > IMO, the iomap IO model needs to be restructured to support post-IO
> > > > and pre-IO data verification/calculation/transformation operations
> > > > so all the work that needs to be done at the inode/offset context
> > > > level can be done in the iomap path before bio submission/after
> > > > bio completion. This will allow infrastructure like fscrypt, data
> > > > compression, data checksums, etc to be suported generically, not
> > > > just by individual filesystems that provide a ->submit_io hook.
> > > >
> > > > As for the btrfs needing to slice and dice bios for multiple
> > > > devices? That should be done via a block device ->make_request
> > > > function, not a custom hook in the iomap code.
> > >
> > > btrfs differentiates the way how metadata and data is
> > > handled/replicated/stored. We would still need an entry point in the
> > > iomap code to handle the I/O submission.
> >
> > This is a data IO path. How metadata is stored/replicated is
> > irrelevant to this code path...
> >
> > > > That's why I don't like this hook - I think hiding data operations
> > > > and/or custom bio manipulations in opaque filesystem callouts is
> > > > completely the wrong approach to be taking. We need to do these
> > > > things in a generic manner so that all filesystems (and block
> > > > devices!) that use the iomap infrastructure can take advantage of
> > > > them, not just one of them.
> > > >
> > > > Quite frankly, I don't care if it takes more time and work up front,
> > > > I'm tired of expedient hacks to merge code quickly repeatedly biting
> > > > us on the arse and wasting far more time sorting out than we would
> > > > have spent getting it right in the first place.
> > >
> > > Sure. I am open to ideas. What are you proposing?
> >
> > That you think about how to normalise the btrfs IO path to fit into
> > the standard iomap/blockdev model, rather than adding special hacks
> > to iomap to allow an opaque, custom, IO model to be shoe-horned into
> > the generic code.
> >
> > For example, post-read validation requires end-io processing,
> > whether it be encryption, decompression, CRC/T10 validation, etc. The
> > iomap end-io completion has all the information needed to run these
> > things, whether it be a callout to the filesystem for custom
> > processing checking, or a generic "decrypt into supplied data page"
> > sort of thing. These all need to be done in the same place, so we
> > should have common support for this. And I suspect the iomap should
> > also state in a flag that something like this is necessary (e.g.
> > IOMAP_FL_ENCRYPTED indicates post-IO decryption needs to be run).
>
> Add some word to this topic, I think introducing a generic full approach
> to IOMAP for encryption, decompression, verification is hard to meet all
> filesystems, and seems unnecessary, especially data compression is involved.
>
> Since the data decompression will expand the data, therefore the logical
> data size is not same as the physical data size:
>
> 1) IO submission should be applied to all physical data, but data
> decompression will be eventually applied to logical mapping.
> As for EROFS, it submits all physical pages with page->private
> points to management structure which maintain all logical pages
> as well for further decompression. And time-sharing approach is
> used to save the L2P mapping array in these allocated pages itself.
>
> In addition, IOMAP also needs to consider fixed-sized output/input
> difference which is filesystem specific and I have no idea whether
> involveing too many code for each requirement is really good for IOMAP;
>
> 2) The post-read processing order is another negotiable stuff.
> Although there is no benefit to select verity->decrypt rather than
> decrypt->verity; but when compression is involved, the different
> orders could be selected by different filesystem users:
>
> 1. decrypt->verity->decompress
>
> 2. verity->decompress->decrypt
>
> 3. decompress->decrypt->verity
maybe "4. decrypt->decompress->verity" is useful as well.
some post-read processing operates on physical data size and
the other post-read processing operates on logical data size.
>
> 1. and 2. could cause less computation since it processes
and less verify data IO as well.
> compressed data, and the security is good enough since
> the behavior of decompression algorithm is deterministic.
> 3 could cause more computation.
>
> All I want to say is the post process is so complicated since we have
> many selection if encryption, decompression, verification are all involved.
Correct the above word, I mean "all I want to say is the pre/post
process is so complicated", therefore a full generic approach for
decryption, decompression, verification is hard.
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
>
> Maybe introduce a core subset to IOMAP is better for long-term
> maintainment and better performance. And we should consider it
> more carefully.
>
> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang
>
> >
> > Similarly, on the IO submit side we have need for a pre-IO
> > processing hook. That can be used to encrypt, compress, calculate
> > data CRCs, do pre-IO COW processing (XFS requires a hook for this),
> > etc.
> >
> > These hooks are needed for for both buffered and direct IO, and they
> > are needed for more filesystems than just btrfs. fscrypt will need
> > them, XFS needs them, etc. So rather than hide data CRCs,
> > compression, and encryption deep inside the btrfs code, pull it up
> > into common layers that are called by the generic code. THis will
> > leave with just the things like mirroring, raid, IO retries, etc
> > below the iomap code, and that's all stuff that can be done behind a
> > ->make_request function that is passed a bio...
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Dave.
> > --
> > Dave Chinner
> > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
