Re: [PATCH v12 00/20] DAX: Page cache bypass for filesystems on memory storage

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 3:47 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2015 10:41:43 -0800 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 09:12:11AM -0500, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 06:03:47AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > What is the status of this patch set?
> >
> > I have no outstanding bug reports against it.  Linus told me that he
> > wants to see it come through Andrew's tree.  I have an email two weeks
> > ago from Andrew saying that it's on his list.  I would love to see it
> > merged since it's almost a year old at this point.
>
> And since then another month and aother merge window has passed.  Is
> there any way to speed up merging big patch sets like this one?

I took a look at dax last time and found it to be unreviewable due to
lack of design description, objectives and code comments.  Hopefully
that's been addressed - I should get back to it fairly soon as I chew
through merge window and holiday backlog.

> Another one is non-blocking read one that has real life use on one
> of the biggest server side webapp frameworks but doesn't seem to make
> progress, which is a bit frustrating.

I took a look at pread2() as well and I have two main issues:

- The patchset includes a pwrite2() syscall which has nothing to do
  with nonblocking reads and which was poorly described and had little
  justification for inclusion.

- We've talked for years about implementing this via fincore+pread
  and at least two fincore implementations are floating about.  Now
  along comes pread2() which does it all in one hit.

  Which approach is best?  I expect fincore+pread is simpler, more
  flexible and more maintainable.  But pread2() will have lower CPU
  consumption and lower average-case latency.

  But how *much* better is pread2()?  I expect the difference will be
  minor because these operations are associated with a great big
  cache-stomping memcpy.  If the pread2() advantage is "insignificant
  for real world workloads" then perhaps it isn't the best way to go.

  I just don't know, and diligence requires that we answer the
  question.  But all I've seen in response to these questions is
  handwaving.  It would be a shame to make a mistake because nobody
  found the time to perform the investigation.

Also, integration of pread2() into xfstests is (or was) happening and
the results of that aren't yet known.

Andrew I  got busier with my other job related things between the Thanksgiving & Christmas then anticipated. However, I have updated and taken apart the patchset into two pieces (preadv2 and pwritev2). That should make evaluating the two separately easier. With the help of Volker I hacked up preadv2 support into samba and I hopefully have some numbers from it soon. Finally, I'm putting together a test case for the typical webapp middle-tier service (epoll + threadpool for diskio).

Haven't stopped, just progressing on that slower due to external factors.

--
Milosz Tanski
CTO
16 East 34th Street, 15th floor
New York, NY 10016

p: 646-253-9055
e: milosz@xxxxxxxxx

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]