All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@redhat.com>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: Zdenek Kabelac <zkabelac@redhat.com>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Li Nan <linan666@huaweicloud.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Chaitanya Kulkarni <chaitanyak@nvidia.com>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, dm-devel@lists.linux.dev,
	ming.lei@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/4] brd discard patches
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2024 10:49:40 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Za8pRGZ9ZV3/jwCH@fedora> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <dc9e648b-6c5f-9642-8892-b48dbc893c6@redhat.com>

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 05:30:07PM +0100, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> Hi
> 
> 
> On Fri, 19 Jan 2024, Ming Lei wrote:
> 
> > Hi Mikulas,
> > 
> > On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 12:07:07PM +0200, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > Hi
> > > 
> > > Here I'm submitting the ramdisk discard patches for the next merge window. 
> > > If you want to make some more changes, please let me now.
> > 
> > brd discard is removed in f09a06a193d9 ("brd: remove discard support")
> > in 2017 because it is just driver private write_zero, and user can get same
> > result with fallocate(FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE).
> > 
> > Also you only mentioned the motivation in V1 cover-letter:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/alpine.LRH.2.02.2209151604410.13231@file01.intranet.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com/
> > 
> > ```
> > Zdenek asked me to write it, because we use brd in the lvm2 testsuite and
> > it would be benefical to run the testsuite with discard enabled in order
> > to test discard handling.
> > ```
> > 
> > But we have lots of test disks with discard support: loop, scsi_debug,
> > null_blk, ublk, ..., so one requestion is that why brd discard is
> > a must for lvm2 testsuite to cover (lvm)discard handling?
> 
> We should ask Zdeněk Kabeláč about it - he is expert about the lvm2 
> testsuite.
> 
> > The reason why brd didn't support discard by freeing pages is writeback
> > deadlock risk, see:
> > 
> > commit f09a06a193d9 ("brd: remove discard support")
> > 
> > -static void discard_from_brd(struct brd_device *brd,
> > -                       sector_t sector, size_t n)
> > -{
> > -       while (n >= PAGE_SIZE) {
> > -               /*
> > -                * Don't want to actually discard pages here because
> > -                * re-allocating the pages can result in writeback
> > -                * deadlocks under heavy load.
> > -                */
> > -               if (0)
> > -                       brd_free_page(brd, sector);
> > -               else
> > -                       brd_zero_page(brd, sector);
> > -               sector += PAGE_SIZE >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
> > -               n -= PAGE_SIZE;
> > -       }
> > -}
> > 
> > However, you didn't mention how your patches address this potential
> > risk, care to document it? I can't find any related words about
> > this problem.
> 
> The writeback deadlock can happen even without discard - if the machine 
> runs out of memory while writing data to a ramdisk. But the probability is 
> increased when discard is used, because pages are freed and re-allocated 
> more often.

Yeah, I agree, what I meant is that this thing needs to be documented,
given discard is re-introduced, and the original deadlock comment isn't
addressed

> 
> Generally, the admin should make sure that the machine has enough 
> available memory when creating a ramdisk - then, the deadlock can't 
> happen.
> 
> Ramdisk has no limit on the number of allocated pages, so when it runs out 
> of memory, the oom killer will try to kill unrelated processes and the 
> machine will hang. If there is risk of overflowing the available memory, 
> the admin should use tmpfs instead of a ramdisk - tmpfs can be configured 
> with a limit and it can also swap out pages.
> 
> > BTW, your patches looks more complicated than the original removed
> > discard implementation. And if the above questions get addressed,
> > I am happy to provide review on the following patches.
> 
> My patches actually free the discarded pages. The original discard 
> implementation just overwrote the pages with zeroes without freeing them.

The original implementation supports to discard by freeing pages, and
it is just bypassed unconditionally by:

               if (0)
                       brd_free_page(brd, sector);
               else
                       brd_zero_page(brd, sector);

However, page could be freed by discard when it is being consumed in brd_do_bvec().

Maybe your patch of "brd: extend the rcu regions to cover read and write"
can be simplified a bit, such as:

- grab rcu read lock in brd_do_bvec()
- release the rcu read lock when allocating page via alloc_page() in
  brd_insert_page()
- change free page by rcu

Or avoid it by holding page reference:

- grabbing page reference in brd_lookup_page() if it is called from
copy_to_brd() or copy_from_brd(), and drop it after it is consumed


Thanks,
Ming


      reply	other threads:[~2024-01-23  2:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-08-10 10:07 [dm-devel] [PATCH v3 0/4] brd discard patches Mikulas Patocka
2023-08-10 10:07 ` Mikulas Patocka
2023-08-10 10:08 ` [dm-devel] [PATCH v3 1/4] brd: use a switch statement in brd_submit_bio Mikulas Patocka
2023-08-10 10:08   ` Mikulas Patocka
2023-08-10 10:09 ` [dm-devel] [PATCH v3 2/4] brd: extend the rcu regions to cover read and write Mikulas Patocka
2023-08-10 10:09   ` Mikulas Patocka
2023-08-10 10:09 ` [dm-devel] [PATCH v3 3/4] brd: enable discard Mikulas Patocka
2023-08-10 10:09   ` Mikulas Patocka
2023-08-10 10:10 ` [dm-devel] [PATCH v3 4/4] brd: implement write zeroes Mikulas Patocka
2023-08-10 10:10   ` Mikulas Patocka
2023-11-10  1:22 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] brd discard patches Li Nan
2023-11-14 13:59   ` Mikulas Patocka
2024-01-19  8:41 ` Ming Lei
2024-01-22 16:30   ` Mikulas Patocka
2024-01-23  2:49     ` Ming Lei [this message]

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=Za8pRGZ9ZV3/jwCH@fedora \
    --to=ming.lei@redhat.com \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=chaitanyak@nvidia.com \
    --cc=dm-devel@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linan666@huaweicloud.com \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
    --cc=zkabelac@redhat.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.