on 4/4/2024 5:07 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 03-04-24 11:04:58, Brian Foster wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 03, 2024 at 04:49:42PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>>> on 3/29/2024 9:10 PM, Brian Foster wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 11:57:48PM +0800, Kemeng Shi wrote:
>>>>> + collect_wb_stats(&stats, wb);
>>>>> +
>>>>
>>>> Also, similar question as before on whether you'd want to check
>>>> WB_registered or something here..
>>> Still prefer to keep full debug info and user could filter out on
>>> demand.
>>
>> Ok. I was more wondering if that was needed for correctness. If not,
>> then that seems fair enough to me.
>>
>>>>> + if (mem_cgroup_wb_domain(wb) == NULL) {
>>>>> + wb_stats_show(m, wb, &stats);
>>>>> + continue;
>>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>> Can you explain what this logic is about? Is the cgwb_calc_thresh()
>>>> thing not needed in this case? A comment might help for those less
>>>> familiar with the implementation details.
>>> If mem_cgroup_wb_domain(wb) is NULL, then it's bdi->wb, otherwise,
>>> it's wb in cgroup. For bdi->wb, there is no need to do wb_tryget
>>> and cgwb_calc_thresh. Will add some comment in next version.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, I'm also wondering if something like the following is correct
>>>> and/or roughly equivalent:
>>>>
>>>> list_for_each_*(wb, ...) {
>>>> struct wb_stats stats = ...;
>>>>
>>>> if (!wb_tryget(wb))
>>>> continue;
>>>>
>>>> collect_wb_stats(&stats, wb);
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> * Extra wb_thresh magic. Drop rcu lock because ... . We
>>>> * can do so here because we have a ref.
>>>> */
>>>> if (mem_cgroup_wb_domain(wb)) {
>>>> rcu_read_unlock();
>>>> stats.wb_thresh = min(stats.wb_thresh, cgwb_calc_thresh(wb));
>>>> rcu_read_lock();
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> wb_stats_show(m, wb, &stats)
>>>> wb_put(wb);
>>>> }
>>> It's correct as wb_tryget to bdi->wb has no harm. I have considered
>>> to do it in this way, I change my mind to do it in new way for
>>> two reason:
>>> 1. Put code handling wb in cgroup more tight which could be easier
>>> to maintain.
>>> 2. Rmove extra wb_tryget/wb_put for wb in bdi.
>>> Would this make sense to you?
>>
>> Ok, well assuming it is correct the above logic is a bit more simple and
>> readable to me. I think you'd just need to fill in the comment around
>> the wb_thresh thing rather than i.e. having to explain we don't need to
>> ref bdi->wb even though it doesn't seem to matter.
>>
>> I kind of feel the same on the wb_stats file thing below just because it
>> seems more consistent and available if wb_stats eventually grows more
>> wb-specific data.
>>
>> That said, this is subjective and not hugely important so I don't insist
>> on either point. Maybe wait a bit and see if Jan or Tejun or somebody
>> has any thoughts..? If nobody else expresses explicit preference then
>> I'm good with it either way.
>
> No strong opinion from me really.
>
>>>>> +static void cgwb_debug_register(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> + debugfs_create_file("wb_stats", 0444, bdi->debug_dir, bdi,
>>>>> + &cgwb_debug_stats_fops);
>>>>> +}
>>>>> +
>>>>> static void bdi_collect_stats(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
>>>>> struct wb_stats *stats)
>>>>> {
>>>>> @@ -117,6 +202,8 @@ static void bdi_collect_stats(struct backing_dev_info *bdi,
>>>>> {
>>>>> collect_wb_stats(stats, &bdi->wb);
>>>>> }
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static inline void cgwb_debug_register(struct backing_dev_info *bdi) { }
>>>>
>>>> Could we just create the wb_stats file regardless of whether cgwb is
>>>> enabled? Obviously theres only one wb in the !CGWB case and it's
>>>> somewhat duplicative with the bdi stats file, but that seems harmless if
>>>> the same code can be reused..? Maybe there's also a small argument for
>>>> dropping the state info from the bdi stats file and moving it to
>>>> wb_stats.In backing-dev.c, there are a lot "#ifdef CGWB .. #else .. #endif" to
>>> avoid unneed extra cost when CGWB is not enabled.
>>> I think it's better to avoid extra cost from wb_stats when CGWB is not
>>> enabled. For now, we only save cpu cost to create and destroy wb_stats
>>> and save memory cost to record debugfs file, we could save more in
>>> future when wb_stats records more debug info.
>
> Well, there's the other side that you don't have to think whether the
> kernel has CGWB enabled or not when asking a customer to gather the
> writeback debug info - you can always ask for wb_stats. Also if you move
> the wb->state to wb_stats only it will become inaccessible with CGWB
> disabled. So I agree with Brian that it is better to provide wb_stats also
> with CGWB disabled (and we can just implement wb_stats for !CGWB case with
> the same function as bdi_stats).
>
> That being said all production kernels I have seen do have CGWB enabled so
> I don't care that much about this...
It's acceptable to me if the extra cost is tolerable.
>
>>> Move state info from bdi stats to wb_stats make senses to me. The only
>>> concern would be compatibility problem. I will add a new patch to this
>>> to make this more noticeable and easier to revert.
>
> Yeah, I don't think we care much about debugfs compatibility but I think
> removing state from bdi_stats is not worth the inconsistency between
> wb_stats and bdi_stats in the !CGWB case.
OK, I will simply keep wb_stats even CGWB is not enabled while keep state
in both bdi_stats and wb_stats if Braian doesn't against in recent dasy.
Kemeng
>
> Honza
>
