All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>,
	Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com>, Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@kernel.org>,
	Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@suse.com>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Joel Becker <jlbec@evilplan.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Anton Altaparmakov <anton@tuxera.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] unifying write variants for filesystems
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 19:21:04 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140202192104.GA21959@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140201224301.GS10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>

On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 10:43:01PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:

> * pipe_buffer_operations ->map()/->unmap() should die; let the caller do
> k{,un}map{,_atomic}().  All instances have the same method there and
> there's no point to make it different.  PIPE_BUF_FLAG_ATOMIC should also
> go.

BTW, another pile of code interesting in that respect (i.e. getting that
interface right) is fs/fuse/dev.c; I don't like the way it's playing
with get_user_pages_fast() there, and I doubt that sharing the code for
read and write side as it's done there makes much sense, but it's
definitely going to be a test for any API of that kind.  It *does*
try to unify write-from-iovec with write-from-array-of-pages and
similar for reads; the interesting issue is that unlike the usual
write-to-pagecache we can have many chunks picked from one page and
we'd rather avoid doing kmap_atomic/kunmap_atomic for each of those.

I suspect that the right answer is, in addition to a primitive that
does copying from iov_iter to have "copy from iov_iter and be ready
to copy more from soon after" + "done copying"; for the "array of
pages" the former would be allowed to leave the current page mapped,
skipping kmap_atomic() on the next call.  And the latter would unmap.
of course.  The caller is responsible for not blocking or doing
unbalanced map/unmap until it's said "done copying".

BTW, is there any reason why fuse/dev.c doesn't use atomic kmaps for
everything?  After all, as soon as we'd done kmap() in there, we
grab a spinlock and don't drop it until just before kunmap().  With
nothing by memcpy() done in between...  Miklos?  AFAICS, we only win
from switching to kmap_atomic there - we can't block anyway, we don't
need it to be visible on other CPUs and nesting isn't a problem.
Looks like it'll be cheaper in highmem cases and do exactly the same
thing as now for non-highmem...  Comments?

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@suse.com>,
	Joel Becker <jlbec@evilplan.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com, Sage Weil <sage@inktank.com>,
	Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>,
	Dave Kleikamp <shaggy@kernel.org>,
	Anton Altaparmakov <anton@tuxera.com>,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Subject: Re: [RFC] unifying write variants for filesystems
Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 19:21:04 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140202192104.GA21959@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140201224301.GS10323@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>

On Sat, Feb 01, 2014 at 10:43:01PM +0000, Al Viro wrote:

> * pipe_buffer_operations ->map()/->unmap() should die; let the caller do
> k{,un}map{,_atomic}().  All instances have the same method there and
> there's no point to make it different.  PIPE_BUF_FLAG_ATOMIC should also
> go.

BTW, another pile of code interesting in that respect (i.e. getting that
interface right) is fs/fuse/dev.c; I don't like the way it's playing
with get_user_pages_fast() there, and I doubt that sharing the code for
read and write side as it's done there makes much sense, but it's
definitely going to be a test for any API of that kind.  It *does*
try to unify write-from-iovec with write-from-array-of-pages and
similar for reads; the interesting issue is that unlike the usual
write-to-pagecache we can have many chunks picked from one page and
we'd rather avoid doing kmap_atomic/kunmap_atomic for each of those.

I suspect that the right answer is, in addition to a primitive that
does copying from iov_iter to have "copy from iov_iter and be ready
to copy more from soon after" + "done copying"; for the "array of
pages" the former would be allowed to leave the current page mapped,
skipping kmap_atomic() on the next call.  And the latter would unmap.
of course.  The caller is responsible for not blocking or doing
unbalanced map/unmap until it's said "done copying".

BTW, is there any reason why fuse/dev.c doesn't use atomic kmaps for
everything?  After all, as soon as we'd done kmap() in there, we
grab a spinlock and don't drop it until just before kunmap().  With
nothing by memcpy() done in between...  Miklos?  AFAICS, we only win
from switching to kmap_atomic there - we can't block anyway, we don't
need it to be visible on other CPUs and nesting isn't a problem.
Looks like it'll be cheaper in highmem cases and do exactly the same
thing as now for non-highmem...  Comments?

  parent reply	other threads:[~2014-02-02 19:21 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 82+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-12-12 18:14 [PATCH 0/5] splice: locking changes and code refactoring Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 18:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 18:15 ` [PATCH 1/5] splice: move balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited into pipe_to_file Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 18:15   ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 18:15 ` [PATCH 2/5] splice: nest i_mutex outside pipe_lock Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 18:15   ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 18:15 ` [PATCH 3/5] splice: use splice_from_pipe in generic_file_splice_write Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 18:15   ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 18:15 ` [PATCH 4/5] xfs: fix splice_write locking Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 18:15   ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 18:15 ` [PATCH 5/5] splice: stop exporting splice_from_pipe implementation details Christoph Hellwig
2013-12-12 18:15   ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-01-13 14:14 ` [PATCH 0/5] splice: locking changes and code refactoring Christoph Hellwig
2014-01-13 14:14   ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-01-13 23:56   ` Al Viro
2014-01-13 23:56     ` Al Viro
2014-01-14 13:22     ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-01-14 13:22       ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-01-14 17:20       ` Al Viro
2014-01-14 17:20         ` Al Viro
2014-01-15 18:10         ` Al Viro
2014-01-15 18:10           ` Al Viro
2014-01-18  6:40         ` Al Viro
2014-01-18  7:22           ` Linus Torvalds
2014-01-18  7:22             ` Linus Torvalds
2014-01-18  7:46             ` Al Viro
2014-01-18  7:56               ` Al Viro
2014-01-18  7:56                 ` Al Viro
2014-01-18  8:27               ` Al Viro
2014-01-18  8:44                 ` David Miller
2014-01-18  8:44                   ` David Miller
2014-02-07 17:10                   ` Al Viro
2014-02-07 17:10                     ` Al Viro
2014-01-18 19:59               ` Linus Torvalds
2014-01-18 20:10                 ` Al Viro
2014-01-18 20:27                   ` Al Viro
2014-01-18 20:27                     ` Al Viro
2014-01-18 20:30                     ` Al Viro
2014-01-18 20:30                       ` Al Viro
2014-01-19  5:13                   ` [RFC] unifying write variants for filesystems Al Viro
2014-01-19  5:13                     ` Al Viro
2014-01-20 13:55                     ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-01-20 13:55                       ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-01-20 20:32                       ` Linus Torvalds
2014-01-20 20:32                         ` Linus Torvalds
2014-02-01 22:43                         ` Al Viro
2014-02-01 22:43                           ` Al Viro
2014-02-02  0:13                           ` Linus Torvalds
2014-02-02  2:02                             ` Al Viro
2014-02-02  2:02                               ` Al Viro
2014-02-02 19:21                           ` Al Viro [this message]
2014-02-02 19:21                             ` Al Viro
2014-02-02 19:23                             ` Al Viro
2014-02-02 19:23                               ` Al Viro
2014-02-03 14:41                             ` Miklos Szeredi
2014-02-03 14:41                               ` Miklos Szeredi
2014-02-03 15:33                               ` Al Viro
2014-02-03 15:33                                 ` Al Viro
2014-02-02 23:16                           ` Anton Altaparmakov
2014-02-02 23:16                             ` Anton Altaparmakov
2014-02-03 15:12                           ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-02-03 16:24                             ` Al Viro
2014-02-03 16:50                             ` Dave Kleikamp
2014-02-03 16:23                           ` Dave Kleikamp
2014-02-04 12:44                             ` Al Viro
2014-02-04 12:44                               ` Al Viro
2014-02-04 12:52                               ` Kent Overstreet
2014-02-04 12:52                                 ` Kent Overstreet
2014-02-04 15:17                                 ` Al Viro
2014-02-04 15:17                                   ` Al Viro
2014-02-04 17:27                                   ` Zach Brown
2014-02-04 17:35                                     ` Kent Overstreet
2014-02-04 18:08                                       ` Al Viro
2014-02-04 18:08                                         ` Al Viro
2014-02-04 18:00                                     ` Al Viro
2014-02-04 18:00                                       ` Al Viro
2014-02-04 18:33                                       ` Zach Brown
2014-02-04 18:36                                         ` Al Viro
2014-02-04 18:36                                           ` Al Viro
2014-02-05 19:58                                           ` Al Viro
2014-02-05 20:42                                             ` Zach Brown
2014-02-06  9:08                                             ` Kent Overstreet

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20140202192104.GA21959@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
    --to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=anton@tuxera.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=jlbec@evilplan.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mfasheh@suse.com \
    --cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
    --cc=sage@inktank.com \
    --cc=sfrench@samba.org \
    --cc=shaggy@kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.