On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 08:33:34AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 09:59:06AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Attempt shared locking for unaligned DIO, but only if the the
> > underlying extent is already allocated and in written state. On
> > failure, retry with the existing exclusive locking.
> >
> > Test case is fio randrw of 512 byte IOs using AIO and an iodepth of
> > 32 IOs.
> >
> > Vanilla:
> >
> > READ: bw=4560KiB/s (4670kB/s), 4560KiB/s-4560KiB/s (4670kB/s-4670kB/s), io=134MiB (140MB), run=30001-30001msec
> > WRITE: bw=4567KiB/s (4676kB/s), 4567KiB/s-4567KiB/s (4676kB/s-4676kB/s), io=134MiB (140MB), run=30001-30001msec
> >
> > Patched:
> > READ: bw=37.6MiB/s (39.4MB/s), 37.6MiB/s-37.6MiB/s (39.4MB/s-39.4MB/s), io=1127MiB (1182MB), run=30002-30002msec
> > WRITE: bw=37.6MiB/s (39.4MB/s), 37.6MiB/s-37.6MiB/s (39.4MB/s-39.4MB/s), io=1128MiB (1183MB), run=30002-30002msec
> >
> > That's an improvement from ~18k IOPS to a ~150k IOPS, which is
> > about the IOPS limit of the VM block device setup I'm testing on.
> >
> > 4kB block IO comparison:
> >
> > READ: bw=296MiB/s (310MB/s), 296MiB/s-296MiB/s (310MB/s-310MB/s), io=8868MiB (9299MB), run=30002-30002msec
> > WRITE: bw=296MiB/s (310MB/s), 296MiB/s-296MiB/s (310MB/s-310MB/s), io=8878MiB (9309MB), run=30002-30002msec
> >
> > Which is ~150k IOPS, same as what the test gets for sub-block
> > AIO+DIO writes with this patch.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > [hch: rebased, split unaligned from nowait]
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> > fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c | 30 +++++++++++-----
> > 2 files changed, 83 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> > index b181db42f2f32f..33899a5cca53f9 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> > @@ -544,22 +544,35 @@ xfs_file_dio_write_aligned(
> > /*
> > * Handle block unaligned direct IO writes
> > *
> > - * In most cases direct IO writes will be done holding IOLOCK_SHARED, allowing
> > - * them to be done in parallel with reads and other direct IO writes. However,
> > - * if the I/O is not aligned to filesystem blocks, the direct I/O layer may
> > - * need to do sub-block zeroing and that requires serialisation against other
> > - * direct I/Os to the same block. In this case we need to serialise the
> > - * submission of the unaligned I/Os so that we don't get racing block zeroing in
> > - * the dio layer.
> > + * In most cases direct IO writes will be done holding IOLOCK_SHARED
> > + * allowing them to be done in parallel with reads and other direct IO writes.
> > + * However, if the IO is not aligned to filesystem blocks, the direct IO layer
> > + * may need to do sub-block zeroing and that requires serialisation against other
> > + * direct IOs to the same block. In the case where sub-block zeroing is not
> > + * required, we can do concurrent sub-block dios to the same block successfully.
> > *
> > - * To provide the same serialisation for AIO, we also need to wait for
> > + * Hence we have two cases here - the shared, optimisitic fast path for written
"optimistic"
> > + * extents, and everything else that needs exclusive IO path access across the
> > + * entire IO.
> > + *
> > + * For the first case, we do all the checks we need at the mapping layer in the
> > + * DIO code as part of the existing NOWAIT infrastructure. Hence all we need to
> > + * do to support concurrent subblock dio is first try a non-blocking submission.
> > + * If that returns -EAGAIN, then we simply repeat the IO submission with full
> > + * IO exclusivity guaranteed so that we avoid racing sub-block zeroing.
> > + *
>
> The above paragraph still implicitly refers to the original NOWAIT based
> implementation. I'd suggest to tweak it to something like:
>
> "The mapping layer of the dio code performs all the checks required to
> distinguish between the shared (overwrite) and exclusive cases. Hence to
> support concurrent unaligned dio, first submit the request in overwrite
> only mode. If that returns -EAGAIN, sub-block zeroing is required.
> Repeat the submission with full IO exclusivity to avoid races."
FWIW I like this version better, because the fact that we reuse the
existing 'nowait' switching to handle unaligned direct writes is a minor
implementation detail here.
I think I'm about ready to RVB this, but there are enough small loose
ends that I'll wait for the next version. :)
--D
> That aside, I still find the single mapping requirement a bit
> unfortunate, but otherwise the code LGTM:
>
> Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > + * The only wrinkle in this case is that the iomap DIO code always does
> > + * partial tail sub-block zeroing for post-EOF writes. Hence for any IO that
> > + * _ends_ past the current EOF we need to run with full exclusivity. Note that
> > + * we also check for the start of IO being beyond EOF because then zeroing
> > + * between the old EOF and the start of the IO is required and that also
> > + * requires exclusivity. Hence we avoid lock cycles and blocking under
> > + * IOCB_NOWAIT for this situation, too.
> > + *
> > + * To provide the exclusivity required when using AIO, we also need to wait for
> > * outstanding IOs to complete so that unwritten extent conversion is completed
> > * before we try to map the overlapping block. This is currently implemented by
> > * hitting it with a big hammer (i.e. inode_dio_wait()).
> > - *
> > - * This means that unaligned dio writes always block. There is no "nowait" fast
> > - * path in this code - if IOCB_NOWAIT is set we simply return -EAGAIN up front
> > - * and we don't have to worry about that anymore.
> > */
> > static noinline ssize_t
> > xfs_file_dio_write_unaligned(
> > @@ -567,13 +580,27 @@ xfs_file_dio_write_unaligned(
> > struct kiocb *iocb,
> > struct iov_iter *from)
> > {
> > - int iolock = XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL;
> > + size_t isize = i_size_read(VFS_I(ip));
> > + size_t count = iov_iter_count(from);
> > + int iolock = XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED;
> > + unsigned int flags = IOMAP_DIO_OVERWRITE_ONLY;
> > ssize_t ret;
> >
> > - /* unaligned dio always waits, bail */
> > - if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT)
> > - return -EAGAIN;
> > - xfs_ilock(ip, iolock);
> > + /*
> > + * Extending writes need exclusivity because of the sub-block zeroing
> > + * that the DIO code always does for partial tail blocks beyond EOF.
> > + */
> > + if (iocb->ki_pos > isize || iocb->ki_pos + count >= isize) {
> > +retry_exclusive:
> > + if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT)
> > + return -EAGAIN;
> > + iolock = XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL;
> > + flags = IOMAP_DIO_FORCE_WAIT;
> > + }
> > +
> > + ret = xfs_ilock_iocb(iocb, iolock);
> > + if (ret)
> > + return ret;
> >
> > /*
> > * We can't properly handle unaligned direct I/O to reflink files yet,
> > @@ -590,19 +617,27 @@ xfs_file_dio_write_unaligned(
> > goto out_unlock;
> >
> > /*
> > - * If we are doing unaligned I/O, we can't allow any other overlapping
> > - * I/O in-flight at the same time or we risk data corruption. Wait for
> > - * all other I/O to drain before we submit.
> > + * If we are doing exclusive unaligned IO, we can't allow any other
> > + * overlapping IO in-flight at the same time or we risk data corruption.
> > + * Wait for all other IO to drain before we submit.
> > */
> > - inode_dio_wait(VFS_I(ip));
> > + if (flags & IOMAP_DIO_FORCE_WAIT)
> > + inode_dio_wait(VFS_I(ip));
> >
> > - /*
> > - * This must be the only I/O in-flight. Wait on it before we release the
> > - * iolock to prevent subsequent overlapping I/O.
> > - */
> > trace_xfs_file_direct_write(iocb, from);
> > ret = iomap_dio_rw(iocb, from, &xfs_direct_write_iomap_ops,
> > - &xfs_dio_write_ops, IOMAP_DIO_FORCE_WAIT);
> > + &xfs_dio_write_ops, flags);
> > + /*
> > + * Retry unaligned IO with exclusive blocking semantics if the DIO
> > + * layer rejected it for mapping or locking reasons. If we are doing
> > + * nonblocking user IO, propagate the error.
> > + */
> > + if (ret == -EAGAIN && !(iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT)) {
> > + ASSERT(flags & IOMAP_DIO_OVERWRITE_ONLY);
> > + xfs_iunlock(ip, iolock);
> > + goto retry_exclusive;
> > + }
> > +
> > out_unlock:
> > if (iolock)
> > xfs_iunlock(ip, iolock);
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
> > index 7b9ff824e82d48..596af78f910596 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
> > @@ -784,15 +784,29 @@ xfs_direct_write_iomap_begin(
> > goto allocate_blocks;
> >
> > /*
> > - * NOWAIT IO needs to span the entire requested IO with a single map so
> > - * that we avoid partial IO failures due to the rest of the IO range not
> > - * covered by this map triggering an EAGAIN condition when it is
> > - * subsequently mapped and aborting the IO.
> > + * NOWAIT and OVERWRITE needs to span the entire requested IO with a
> > + * single map so that we avoid partial IO failures due to the rest of
> > + * the IO range not covered by this map triggering an EAGAIN condition
> > + * when it is subsequently mapped and aborting the IO.
> > */
> > - if ((flags & IOMAP_NOWAIT) &&
> > - !imap_spans_range(&imap, offset_fsb, end_fsb)) {
> > + if (flags & (IOMAP_NOWAIT | IOMAP_OVERWRITE_ONLY)) {
> > error = -EAGAIN;
> > - goto out_unlock;
> > + if (!imap_spans_range(&imap, offset_fsb, end_fsb))
> > + goto out_unlock;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * For overwrite only I/O, we cannot convert unwritten extents without
> > + * requiring sub-block zeroing. This can only be done under an
> > + * exclusive IOLOCK, hence return -EAGAIN if this is not a written
> > + * extent to tell the caller to try again.
> > + */
> > + if (flags & IOMAP_OVERWRITE_ONLY) {
> > + error = -EAGAIN;
> > + if (imap.br_state != XFS_EXT_NORM &&
> > + ((offset & mp->m_blockmask) ||
> > + ((offset + length) & mp->m_blockmask)))
> > + goto out_unlock;
> > }
> >
> > xfs_iunlock(ip, lockmode);
> > @@ -801,7 +815,7 @@ xfs_direct_write_iomap_begin(
> >
> > allocate_blocks:
> > error = -EAGAIN;
> > - if (flags & IOMAP_NOWAIT)
> > + if (flags & (IOMAP_NOWAIT | IOMAP_OVERWRITE_ONLY))
> > goto out_unlock;
> >
> > /*
> > --
> > 2.29.2
> >
>
