On Thu 25-10-18 09:58:51, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 03:22:30PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Thu 18-10-18 16:23:18, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > ->page_mkwrite is extremely expensive in btrfs. We have to reserve
> > > space, which can take 6 lifetimes, and we could possibly have to wait on
> > > writeback on the page, another several lifetimes. To avoid this simply
> > > drop the mmap_sem if we didn't have the cached page and do all of our
> > > work and return the appropriate retry error. If we have the cached page
> > > we know we did all the right things to set this page up and we can just
> > > carry on.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ...
> > > @@ -8828,6 +8830,29 @@ vm_fault_t btrfs_page_mkwrite(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > >
> > > reserved_space = PAGE_SIZE;
> > >
> > > + /*
> > > + * We have our cached page from a previous mkwrite, check it to make
> > > + * sure it's still dirty and our file size matches when we ran mkwrite
> > > + * the last time. If everything is OK then return VM_FAULT_LOCKED,
> > > + * otherwise do the mkwrite again.
> > > + */
> > > + if (vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_USED_CACHED) {
> > > + lock_page(page);
> > > + if (vmf->cached_size == i_size_read(inode) &&
> > > + PageDirty(page))
> > > + return VM_FAULT_LOCKED;
> > > + unlock_page(page);
> > > + }
> >
> > I guess this is similar to Dave's comment: Why is i_size so special? What
> > makes sure that file didn't get modified between time you've prepared
> > cached_page and now such that you need to do the preparation again?
> > And if indeed metadata prepared for a page cannot change, what's so special
> > about it being that particular cached_page?
> >
> > Maybe to phrase my objections differently: Your preparations in
> > btrfs_page_mkwrite() are obviously related to your filesystem metadata. So
> > why cannot you infer from that metadata (extent tree, whatever - I'd use
> > extent status tree in ext4) whether that particular file+offset is already
> > prepared for writing and just bail out with success in that case?
> >
>
> I was just being overly paranoid, I was afraid of the case where we would
> truncate and then extend in between, but now that I actually think about it that
> would end up with the page not being on the mapping anymore so we would catch
> that case. I've dropped this part from my current version. I'm getting some
> testing on these patches in production and I'll post them sometime next week
> once I'm happy with them. Thanks,
OK, but do you still need the vmf->cached_page stuff? Because I don't see
why even that is necessary...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
