"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 12:16:28AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
>> Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > We've been constrained to a max single 512 KiB IO for a while now on x86_64.
>> > This is due to the number of DMA segments and the segment size. With LBS the
>> > segments can be much bigger without using huge pages, and so on a 64 KiB
>> > block size filesystem you can now see 2 MiB IOs when using buffered IO.
>> > But direct IO is still crippled, because allocations are from anonymous
>> > memory, and unless you are using mTHP you won't get large folios. mTHP
>> > is also non-deterministic, and so you end up in a worse situation for
>> > direct IO if you want to rely on large folios, as you may *sometimes*
>> > end up with large folios and sometimes you might not. IO patterns can
>> > therefore be erratic.
>> >
>> > As I just posted in a simple RFC [0], I believe the two step DMA API
>> > helps resolve this. Provided we move the block integrity stuff to the
>> > new DMA API as well, the only patches really needed to support larger
>> > IOs for direct IO for NVMe are:
>> >
>> > iomap: use BLK_MAX_BLOCK_SIZE for the iomap zero page
>> > blkdev: lift BLK_MAX_BLOCK_SIZE to page cache limit
>>
>> Maybe some naive questions, however I would like some help from people
>> who could confirm if my understanding here is correct or not.
>>
>> Given that we now support large folios in buffered I/O directly on raw
>> block devices, applications must carefully serialize direct I/O and
>> buffered I/O operations on these devices, right?
>>
>> IIUC. until now, mixing buffered I/O and direct I/O (for doing I/O on
>> /dev/xxx) on separate boundaries (blocksize == pagesize) worked fine,
>> since direct I/O would only invalidate its corresponding page in the
>> page cache. This assumes that both direct I/O and buffered I/O use the
>> same blocksize and pagesize (e.g. both using 4K or both using 64K).
>> However with large folios now introduced in the buffered I/O path for
>> block devices, direct I/O may end up invalidating an entire large folio,
>> which could span across a region where an ongoing direct I/O operation
>
> I don't understand the question. Should this read ^^^ "buffered"?
oops, yes.
> As in, directio submits its write bio, meanwhile another thread
> initiates a buffered write nearby, the write gets a 2MB folio, and
> then the post-write invalidation knocks down the entire large folio?
> Even though the two ranges written are (say) 256k apart?
>
Yes, Darrick. That is my question.
i.e. w/o large folios in block devices one could do direct-io &
buffered-io in parallel even just next to each other (assuming 4k pagesize).
|4k-direct-io | 4k-buffered-io |
However with large folios now supported in buffered-io path for block
devices, the application cannot submit such direct-io + buffered-io
pattern in parallel. Since direct-io can end up invalidating the folio
spanning over it's 4k range, on which buffered-io is in progress.
So now applications need to be careful to not submit any direct-io &
buffered-io in parallel with such above patterns on a raw block device,
correct? That is what I would like to confirm.
> --D
>
>> is taking place. That means, with large folio support in block devices,
>> application developers must now ensure that direct I/O and buffered I/O
>> operations on block devices are properly serialized, correct?
>>
>> I was looking at posix page [1] and I don't think posix standard defines
>> the semantics for operations on block devices. So it is really upto the
>> individual OS implementation, correct?
>>
>> And IIUC, what Linux recommends is to never mix any kind of direct-io
>> and buffered-io when doing I/O on raw block devices, but I cannot find
>> this recommendation in any Documentation? So can someone please point me
>> one where we recommend this?
And this ^^^
-ritesh
>>
>> [1]: https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/
>>
>>
>> -ritesh
>>
>> >
>> > The other two nvme-pci patches in that series are to just help with
>> > experimentation now and they can be ignored.
>> >
>> > It does beg a few questions:
>> >
>> > - How are we computing the new max single IO anyway? Are we really
>> > bounded only by what devices support?
>> > - Do we believe this is the step in the right direction?
>> > - Is 2 MiB a sensible max block sector size limit for the next few years?
>> > - What other considerations should we have?
>> > - Do we want something more deterministic for large folios for direct IO?
>> >
>> > [0] https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20250320111328.2841690-1-mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > Luis
>>
