Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 08:32:42PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: >> Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 07:13:04PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: >> >> Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> >> > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 05:56:25PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >> >> >> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 07:18:07AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: >> >> >> > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 10:03:05AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: >> >> >> > > Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 06:23:44AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >> >> >> > > >> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 02:48:12PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: >> >> >> > > >> > But I also wonder.. if we can skip the iop alloc on full folio buffered >> >> >> > > >> > overwrites, isn't that also true of mapped writes to folios that don't >> >> >> > > >> > already have an iop? >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > > >> Yes. >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > Hm, well, maybe? If somebody stores to a page, we obviously set the >> >> >> > > > dirty flag on the folio, but depending on the architecture, we may >> >> >> > > > or may not have independent dirty bits on the PTEs (eg if it's a PMD, >> >> >> > > > we have one dirty bit for the entire folio; similarly if ARM uses the >> >> >> > > > contiguous PTE bit). If we do have independent dirty bits, we could >> >> >> > > > dirty only the blocks corresponding to a single page at a time. >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > This has potential for causing some nasty bugs, so I'm inclined to >> >> >> > > > rule that if a folio is mmaped, then it's all dirty from any writable >> >> >> > > > page fault. The fact is that applications generally do not perform >> >> >> > > > writes through mmap because the error handling story is so poor. >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > There may be a different answer for anonymous memory, but that doesn't >> >> >> > > > feel like my problem and shouldn't feel like any FS developer's problem. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Although I am skeptical too to do the changes which Brian is suggesting >> >> >> > > here. i.e. not making all the blocks of the folio dirty when we are >> >> >> > > going to call ->dirty_folio -> filemap_dirty_folio() (mmaped writes). >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > However, I am sorry but I coudn't completely follow your reasoning >> >> >> > > above. I think what Brian is suggesting here is that >> >> >> > > filemap_dirty_folio() should be similar to complete buffered overwrite >> >> >> > > case where we do not allocate the iop at the ->write_begin() time. >> >> >> > > Then at the writeback time we allocate an iop and mark all blocks dirty. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Yeah... I think what Willy is saying (i.e. to not track sub-page dirty >> >> >> > granularity of intra-folio faults) makes sense, but I'm also not sure >> >> >> > what it has to do with the idea of being consistent with how full folio >> >> >> > overwrites are implemented (between buffered or mapped writes). We're >> >> >> > not changing historical dirtying granularity either way. I think this is >> >> >> > just a bigger picture thought for future consideration as opposed to >> >> >> > direct feedback on this patch.. >> >> >> >> >> >> <nod> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > In a way it is also the similar case as for mmapped writes too but my >> >> >> > > only worry is the way mmaped writes work and it makes more >> >> >> > > sense to keep the dirty state of folio and per-block within iop in sync. >> >> >> > > For that matter, we can even just make sure we always allocate an iop in >> >> >> > > the complete overwrites case as well. I didn't change that code because >> >> >> > > it was kept that way for uptodate state as well and based on one of your >> >> >> > > inputs for complete overwrite case. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Can you elaborate on your concerns, out of curiosity? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Either way, IMO it also seems reasonable to drop this behavior for the >> >> >> > basic implementation of dirty tracking (so always allocate the iop for >> >> >> > sub-folio tracking as you suggest above) and then potentially restore it >> >> >> > as a separate optimization patch at the end of the series. >> >> >> >> >> >> Agree. >> >> >> >> >> >> > That said, I'm not totally clear why it exists in the first place, so >> >> >> > that might warrant some investigation. Is it primarily to defer >> >> >> > allocations out of task write/fault contexts? >> >> >> >> >> >> (Assuming by 'it' you mean the behavior where we don't unconditionally >> >> >> allocate iops for blocksize < foliosize...) >> >> >> >> >> >> IIRC the reason is to reduce memory usage by eliding iop allocations >> >> >> unless it's absolutely necessary for correctness was /my/ understanding >> >> >> of why we don't always allocate the iop... >> >> >> >> >> >> > To optimize the case where pagecache is dirtied but truncated or >> >> >> > something and thus never written back? >> >> >> >> >> >> ...because this might very well happen. Write a temporary .o file to >> >> >> the filesystem, then delete the whole thing before writeback ever gets >> >> >> its hands on the file. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > I don't think a simple temp write will trigger this scenario currently >> >> > because the folios would have to be uptodate at the time of the write to >> >> > bypass the iop alloc. I guess you'd have to read folios (even if backed >> >> > by holes) first to start seeing the !iop case at writeback time (for bs >> >> > != ps). >> >> > >> >> > That could change with these patches, but I was trying to reason about >> >> > the intent of the existing code and whether there was some known reason >> >> > to continue to try and defer the iop allocation as the need/complexity >> >> > for deferring it grows with the addition of more (i.e. dirty) tracking. >> >> > >> >> >> >> Here is the 1st discussion/reasoning where the deferred iop allocation >> >> in the readpage path got discussed [1]. >> >> And here is the discussion when I first pointed out the deferred >> >> allocation in writepage path. IMO, it got slipped in with the >> >> discussions maybe only on mailing list but nothing in the commit >> >> messages or comments.[2] >> >> >> >> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20210628172727.1894503-1-agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx/ >> >> [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20230130202150.pfohy5yg6dtu64ce@rh-tp/ >> >> >> >> >> > Is there any room for further improvement where the alloc could be >> >> >> > avoided completely for folio overwrites instead of just deferred? >> >> >> >> >> >> Once writeback starts, though, we need the iop so that we can know when >> >> >> all the writeback for that folio is actually complete, no matter how >> >> >> many IOs might be in flight for that folio. I don't know how you'd get >> >> >> around this problem. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Ok. I noticed some kind of counter or something being updated last time >> >> > I looked through that code, so it sounds like that's the reason the iop >> >> > eventually needs to exist. Thanks. >> >> > >> >> >> > Was that actually the case at some point and then something later >> >> >> > decided the iop was needed at writeback time, leading to current >> >> >> > behavior? >> >> >> >> >> >> It's been in iomap since the beginning when we lifted it from xfs. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Not sure exactly what you're referring to here. iomap_writepage_map() >> >> > would warn on the (bs != ps && !iop) case up until commit 8e1bcef8e18d >> >> > ("iomap: Permit pages without an iop to enter writeback"), so I don't >> >> > see how iop allocs were deferred (other than when bs == ps, obviously) >> >> > prior to that. >> >> > >> >> > Heh, but I'm starting to get my wires crossed just trying to piece >> >> > things together here. Ritesh, ISTM the (writeback && !iop && bs != ps) >> >> > case is primarily a subtle side effect of the current writeback behavior >> >> > being driven by uptodate status. I think it's probably wise to drop it >> >> > at least initially, always alloc and dirty the appropriate iop ranges >> >> > for sub-folio blocks, and then if you or others think there is value in >> >> > the overwrite optimization to defer iop allocs, tack that on as a >> >> > separate patch and try to be consistent between buffered and mapped >> >> > writes. >> >> >> >> Based on the discussion so far, I would like to think of this as follow: >> >> We already have some sort of lazy iop allocation in the buffered I/O >> >> path (discussed above). This patch series does not changes that >> >> behavior. For now I would like to keep the page mkwrite page as is >> >> without any lazy iop allocation optimization. >> >> I am ok to pick this optimization work as a seperate series >> >> because, IIUC, Christoph has some ideas on deferring iop allocations >> >> even further [2] (from link shared above). >> >> >> >> Does that sound good? >> >> >> > >> > Could you do that in two steps where the buffered I/O path variant is >> > replaced by explicit dirty tracking in the initial patch, and then is >> > restored by a subsequent patch in the same series? That would allow >> >> Sorry, I couldn't follow it. Can you please elaborate. >> > > Sorry for the confusion... > >> So, what I was suggesting was - for buffered I/O path we should continue >> to have the lazy iop allocation scheme whereever possible. >> Rest of the optimizations of further deferring the iop allocation >> including in the ->mkwrite path should be dealt seperately in a later >> patch series. >> > > Yup, agree. > >> Also we already have a seperate patch in this series which defers the >> iop allocation if the write completely overwrites the folio [1]. >> Earlier the behavior was that it skips it entirely if the folio was >> uptodate, but since we require it for per-block dirty tracking, we >> defer iop allocation only if it was a complete overwrite of the folio. >> > > That is a prepatory patch before iop dirty tracking is enabled in patch > 5, right? Yes, right. > I was mainly just suggesting to make the overwrite checking > part of this patch come after dirty tracking is enabled (as a small > optimization patch) rather than before. > > I don't want to harp on it if that's difficult or still doesn't make > sense for some reason. I'll take a closer look the next go around when I > have a bit more time and just send a diff if it seems it can be done > cleanly.. It should not be difficult. Will make the change in next rev. Thanks for the help. Seems a lot of things have been sorted out now :) I will be working on the review comments, finish off few of the remaining todos, get more testing done and will spin off the next revision. -ritesh > > Brian > >> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/ZGzRX9YVkAYJGLqV@bfoster/T/#m048d0a097f7abb09da1c12c9a02afbcc3b9d39ee >> >> >> -ritesh >> >> > keeping it around and documenting it explicitly in the commit log for >> > the separate patch, but IMO makes this a bit easier to review (and >> > potentially debug/bisect if needed down the road). >> > >> > But I don't insist if that's too troublesome for some reason... >> > >> > Brian >> > >> >> > >> >> > Darrick noted above that he also agrees with that separate patch >> >> > approach. For me, I think it would also be useful to show that there is >> >> > some measurable performance benefit on at least one reasonable workload >> >> > to help justify it. >> >> >> >> Agree that when we work on such optimizations as a seperate series, it >> >> will be worth measuring the performance benefits of that. >> >> >> >> >> >> -ritesh >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Brian >> >> > >> >> >> --D (who is now weeks behind on reviewing things and stressed out) >> >> >> >> >> >> > Brian >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > Though I agree that we should ideally be allocatting & marking all >> >> >> > > blocks in iop as dirty in the call to ->dirty_folio(), I just wanted to >> >> >> > > understand your reasoning better. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Thanks! >> >> >> > > -ritesh >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >>
