On Tue, Dec 03, 2024 at 08:31:47AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> If RWF_UNCACHED is set for a write, mark new folios being written with
> uncached. This is done by passing in the fact that it's an uncached write
> through the folio pointer. We can only get there when IOCB_UNCACHED was
> allowed, which can only happen if the file system opts in. Opting in means
> they need to check for the LSB in the folio pointer to know if it's an
> uncached write or not. If it is, then FGP_UNCACHED should be used if
> creating new folios is necessary.
>
> Uncached writes will drop any folios they create upon writeback
> completion, but leave folios that may exist in that range alone. Since
> ->write_begin() doesn't currently take any flags, and to avoid needing
> to change the callback kernel wide, use the foliop being passed in to
> ->write_begin() to signal if this is an uncached write or not. File
> systems can then use that to mark newly created folios as uncached.
>
> This provides similar benefits to using RWF_UNCACHED with reads. Testing
> buffered writes on 32 files:
>
> writing bs 65536, uncached 0
> 1s: 196035MB/sec
> 2s: 132308MB/sec
> 3s: 132438MB/sec
> 4s: 116528MB/sec
> 5s: 103898MB/sec
> 6s: 108893MB/sec
> 7s: 99678MB/sec
> 8s: 106545MB/sec
> 9s: 106826MB/sec
> 10s: 101544MB/sec
> 11s: 111044MB/sec
> 12s: 124257MB/sec
> 13s: 116031MB/sec
> 14s: 114540MB/sec
> 15s: 115011MB/sec
> 16s: 115260MB/sec
> 17s: 116068MB/sec
> 18s: 116096MB/sec
>
> where it's quite obvious where the page cache filled, and performance
> dropped from to about half of where it started, settling in at around
> 115GB/sec. Meanwhile, 32 kswapds were running full steam trying to
> reclaim pages.
>
> Running the same test with uncached buffered writes:
>
> writing bs 65536, uncached 1
> 1s: 198974MB/sec
> 2s: 189618MB/sec
> 3s: 193601MB/sec
> 4s: 188582MB/sec
> 5s: 193487MB/sec
> 6s: 188341MB/sec
> 7s: 194325MB/sec
> 8s: 188114MB/sec
> 9s: 192740MB/sec
> 10s: 189206MB/sec
> 11s: 193442MB/sec
> 12s: 189659MB/sec
> 13s: 191732MB/sec
> 14s: 190701MB/sec
> 15s: 191789MB/sec
> 16s: 191259MB/sec
> 17s: 190613MB/sec
> 18s: 191951MB/sec
>
> and the behavior is fully predictable, performing the same throughout
> even after the page cache would otherwise have fully filled with dirty
> data. It's also about 65% faster, and using half the CPU of the system
> compared to the normal buffered write.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/fs.h | 5 +++++
> include/linux/pagemap.h | 9 +++++++++
> mm/filemap.c | 12 +++++++++++-
> 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index 40383f5cc6a2..32255473f79d 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -2912,6 +2912,11 @@ static inline ssize_t generic_write_sync(struct kiocb *iocb, ssize_t count)
> (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_SYNC) ? 0 : 1);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> + } else if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_UNCACHED) {
> + struct address_space *mapping = iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping;
> +
> + filemap_fdatawrite_range_kick(mapping, iocb->ki_pos,
> + iocb->ki_pos + count);
> }
>
> return count;
> diff --git a/include/linux/pagemap.h b/include/linux/pagemap.h
> index f2d49dccb7c1..e49587c40157 100644
> --- a/include/linux/pagemap.h
> +++ b/include/linux/pagemap.h
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
> #include <linux/gfp.h>
> #include <linux/bitops.h>
> #include <linux/hardirq.h> /* for in_interrupt() */
> +#include <linux/writeback.h>
> #include <linux/hugetlb_inline.h>
>
> struct folio_batch;
> @@ -70,6 +71,14 @@ static inline int filemap_write_and_wait(struct address_space *mapping)
> return filemap_write_and_wait_range(mapping, 0, LLONG_MAX);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Value passed in to ->write_begin() if IOCB_UNCACHED is set for the write,
> + * and the ->write_begin() handler on a file system supporting FOP_UNCACHED
> + * must check for this and pass FGP_UNCACHED for folio creation.
> + */
> +#define foliop_uncached ((struct folio *) 0xfee1c001)
> +#define foliop_is_uncached(foliop) (*(foliop) == foliop_uncached)
Honestly, I'm not a fan of foliop_uncached or foliop_is_uncached.
The first one because it's a magic value and can you guarantee that
0xfee1c001 will never be a pointer to an actual struct folio, even on
32-bit?
Second, they're both named "foliop" even though the first one doesn't
return a (struct folio **) but the second one takes that as an arg.
I think these two macros are only used for ext4 (or really, !iomap)
support, right? And that's only to avoid messing with ->write_begin?
What if you dropped ext4 support instead? :D
--D
> /**
> * filemap_set_wb_err - set a writeback error on an address_space
> * @mapping: mapping in which to set writeback error
> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c
> index 826df99e294f..00f3c6c58629 100644
> --- a/mm/filemap.c
> +++ b/mm/filemap.c
> @@ -4095,7 +4095,7 @@ ssize_t generic_perform_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *i)
> ssize_t written = 0;
>
> do {
> - struct folio *folio;
> + struct folio *folio = NULL;
> size_t offset; /* Offset into folio */
> size_t bytes; /* Bytes to write to folio */
> size_t copied; /* Bytes copied from user */
> @@ -4123,6 +4123,16 @@ ssize_t generic_perform_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *i)
> break;
> }
>
> + /*
> + * If IOCB_UNCACHED is set here, we now the file system
> + * supports it. And hence it'll know to check folip for being
> + * set to this magic value. If so, it's an uncached write.
> + * Whenever ->write_begin() changes prototypes again, this
> + * can go away and just pass iocb or iocb flags.
> + */
> + if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_UNCACHED)
> + folio = foliop_uncached;
> +
> status = a_ops->write_begin(file, mapping, pos, bytes,
> &folio, &fsdata);
> if (unlikely(status < 0))
> --
> 2.45.2
>
>
