On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 08:32:42PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On Tue, May 23, 2023 at 07:13:04PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > >> Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> > >> > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 05:56:25PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > >> >> On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 07:18:07AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > >> >> > On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 10:03:05AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote: > >> >> > > Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On Thu, May 18, 2023 at 06:23:44AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > >> >> > > >> On Wed, May 17, 2023 at 02:48:12PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > >> >> > > >> > But I also wonder.. if we can skip the iop alloc on full folio buffered > >> >> > > >> > overwrites, isn't that also true of mapped writes to folios that don't > >> >> > > >> > already have an iop? > >> >> > > >> > >> >> > > >> Yes. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Hm, well, maybe? If somebody stores to a page, we obviously set the > >> >> > > > dirty flag on the folio, but depending on the architecture, we may > >> >> > > > or may not have independent dirty bits on the PTEs (eg if it's a PMD, > >> >> > > > we have one dirty bit for the entire folio; similarly if ARM uses the > >> >> > > > contiguous PTE bit). If we do have independent dirty bits, we could > >> >> > > > dirty only the blocks corresponding to a single page at a time. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > This has potential for causing some nasty bugs, so I'm inclined to > >> >> > > > rule that if a folio is mmaped, then it's all dirty from any writable > >> >> > > > page fault. The fact is that applications generally do not perform > >> >> > > > writes through mmap because the error handling story is so poor. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > There may be a different answer for anonymous memory, but that doesn't > >> >> > > > feel like my problem and shouldn't feel like any FS developer's problem. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Although I am skeptical too to do the changes which Brian is suggesting > >> >> > > here. i.e. not making all the blocks of the folio dirty when we are > >> >> > > going to call ->dirty_folio -> filemap_dirty_folio() (mmaped writes). > >> >> > > > >> >> > > However, I am sorry but I coudn't completely follow your reasoning > >> >> > > above. I think what Brian is suggesting here is that > >> >> > > filemap_dirty_folio() should be similar to complete buffered overwrite > >> >> > > case where we do not allocate the iop at the ->write_begin() time. > >> >> > > Then at the writeback time we allocate an iop and mark all blocks dirty. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > Yeah... I think what Willy is saying (i.e. to not track sub-page dirty > >> >> > granularity of intra-folio faults) makes sense, but I'm also not sure > >> >> > what it has to do with the idea of being consistent with how full folio > >> >> > overwrites are implemented (between buffered or mapped writes). We're > >> >> > not changing historical dirtying granularity either way. I think this is > >> >> > just a bigger picture thought for future consideration as opposed to > >> >> > direct feedback on this patch.. > >> >> > >> >> <nod> > >> >> > >> >> > > In a way it is also the similar case as for mmapped writes too but my > >> >> > > only worry is the way mmaped writes work and it makes more > >> >> > > sense to keep the dirty state of folio and per-block within iop in sync. > >> >> > > For that matter, we can even just make sure we always allocate an iop in > >> >> > > the complete overwrites case as well. I didn't change that code because > >> >> > > it was kept that way for uptodate state as well and based on one of your > >> >> > > inputs for complete overwrite case. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > Can you elaborate on your concerns, out of curiosity? > >> >> > > >> >> > Either way, IMO it also seems reasonable to drop this behavior for the > >> >> > basic implementation of dirty tracking (so always allocate the iop for > >> >> > sub-folio tracking as you suggest above) and then potentially restore it > >> >> > as a separate optimization patch at the end of the series. > >> >> > >> >> Agree. > >> >> > >> >> > That said, I'm not totally clear why it exists in the first place, so > >> >> > that might warrant some investigation. Is it primarily to defer > >> >> > allocations out of task write/fault contexts? > >> >> > >> >> (Assuming by 'it' you mean the behavior where we don't unconditionally > >> >> allocate iops for blocksize < foliosize...) > >> >> > >> >> IIRC the reason is to reduce memory usage by eliding iop allocations > >> >> unless it's absolutely necessary for correctness was /my/ understanding > >> >> of why we don't always allocate the iop... > >> >> > >> >> > To optimize the case where pagecache is dirtied but truncated or > >> >> > something and thus never written back? > >> >> > >> >> ...because this might very well happen. Write a temporary .o file to > >> >> the filesystem, then delete the whole thing before writeback ever gets > >> >> its hands on the file. > >> >> > >> > > >> > I don't think a simple temp write will trigger this scenario currently > >> > because the folios would have to be uptodate at the time of the write to > >> > bypass the iop alloc. I guess you'd have to read folios (even if backed > >> > by holes) first to start seeing the !iop case at writeback time (for bs > >> > != ps). > >> > > >> > That could change with these patches, but I was trying to reason about > >> > the intent of the existing code and whether there was some known reason > >> > to continue to try and defer the iop allocation as the need/complexity > >> > for deferring it grows with the addition of more (i.e. dirty) tracking. > >> > > >> > >> Here is the 1st discussion/reasoning where the deferred iop allocation > >> in the readpage path got discussed [1]. > >> And here is the discussion when I first pointed out the deferred > >> allocation in writepage path. IMO, it got slipped in with the > >> discussions maybe only on mailing list but nothing in the commit > >> messages or comments.[2] > >> > >> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20210628172727.1894503-1-agruenba@xxxxxxxxxx/ > >> [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20230130202150.pfohy5yg6dtu64ce@rh-tp/ > >> > >> >> > Is there any room for further improvement where the alloc could be > >> >> > avoided completely for folio overwrites instead of just deferred? > >> >> > >> >> Once writeback starts, though, we need the iop so that we can know when > >> >> all the writeback for that folio is actually complete, no matter how > >> >> many IOs might be in flight for that folio. I don't know how you'd get > >> >> around this problem. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Ok. I noticed some kind of counter or something being updated last time > >> > I looked through that code, so it sounds like that's the reason the iop > >> > eventually needs to exist. Thanks. > >> > > >> >> > Was that actually the case at some point and then something later > >> >> > decided the iop was needed at writeback time, leading to current > >> >> > behavior? > >> >> > >> >> It's been in iomap since the beginning when we lifted it from xfs. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Not sure exactly what you're referring to here. iomap_writepage_map() > >> > would warn on the (bs != ps && !iop) case up until commit 8e1bcef8e18d > >> > ("iomap: Permit pages without an iop to enter writeback"), so I don't > >> > see how iop allocs were deferred (other than when bs == ps, obviously) > >> > prior to that. > >> > > >> > Heh, but I'm starting to get my wires crossed just trying to piece > >> > things together here. Ritesh, ISTM the (writeback && !iop && bs != ps) > >> > case is primarily a subtle side effect of the current writeback behavior > >> > being driven by uptodate status. I think it's probably wise to drop it > >> > at least initially, always alloc and dirty the appropriate iop ranges > >> > for sub-folio blocks, and then if you or others think there is value in > >> > the overwrite optimization to defer iop allocs, tack that on as a > >> > separate patch and try to be consistent between buffered and mapped > >> > writes. > >> > >> Based on the discussion so far, I would like to think of this as follow: > >> We already have some sort of lazy iop allocation in the buffered I/O > >> path (discussed above). This patch series does not changes that > >> behavior. For now I would like to keep the page mkwrite page as is > >> without any lazy iop allocation optimization. > >> I am ok to pick this optimization work as a seperate series > >> because, IIUC, Christoph has some ideas on deferring iop allocations > >> even further [2] (from link shared above). > >> > >> Does that sound good? > >> > > > > Could you do that in two steps where the buffered I/O path variant is > > replaced by explicit dirty tracking in the initial patch, and then is > > restored by a subsequent patch in the same series? That would allow > > Sorry, I couldn't follow it. Can you please elaborate. > Sorry for the confusion... > So, what I was suggesting was - for buffered I/O path we should continue > to have the lazy iop allocation scheme whereever possible. > Rest of the optimizations of further deferring the iop allocation > including in the ->mkwrite path should be dealt seperately in a later > patch series. > Yup, agree. > Also we already have a seperate patch in this series which defers the > iop allocation if the write completely overwrites the folio [1]. > Earlier the behavior was that it skips it entirely if the folio was > uptodate, but since we require it for per-block dirty tracking, we > defer iop allocation only if it was a complete overwrite of the folio. > That is a prepatory patch before iop dirty tracking is enabled in patch 5, right? I was mainly just suggesting to make the overwrite checking part of this patch come after dirty tracking is enabled (as a small optimization patch) rather than before. I don't want to harp on it if that's difficult or still doesn't make sense for some reason. I'll take a closer look the next go around when I have a bit more time and just send a diff if it seems it can be done cleanly.. Brian > [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/ZGzRX9YVkAYJGLqV@bfoster/T/#m048d0a097f7abb09da1c12c9a02afbcc3b9d39ee > > > -ritesh > > > keeping it around and documenting it explicitly in the commit log for > > the separate patch, but IMO makes this a bit easier to review (and > > potentially debug/bisect if needed down the road). > > > > But I don't insist if that's too troublesome for some reason... > > > > Brian > > > >> > > >> > Darrick noted above that he also agrees with that separate patch > >> > approach. For me, I think it would also be useful to show that there is > >> > some measurable performance benefit on at least one reasonable workload > >> > to help justify it. > >> > >> Agree that when we work on such optimizations as a seperate series, it > >> will be worth measuring the performance benefits of that. > >> > >> > >> -ritesh > >> > >> > > >> > Brian > >> > > >> >> --D (who is now weeks behind on reviewing things and stressed out) > >> >> > >> >> > Brian > >> >> > > >> >> > > Though I agree that we should ideally be allocatting & marking all > >> >> > > blocks in iop as dirty in the call to ->dirty_folio(), I just wanted to > >> >> > > understand your reasoning better. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > Thanks! > >> >> > > -ritesh > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >
