From: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>, viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Linux Fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Ito <t-itoh@jp.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] direct-io: add a hook for the fs to provide its own bio merging check function
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:18:18 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4CE47EDA.90205@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1290012777-sup-9103@think>
On wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:55:28 -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Josef Bacik's message of 2010-11-17 07:50:11 -0500:
>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 06:11:03PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
>>> Hi, Josef
>>>
>>> On wed, 17 Nov 2010 04:37:21 -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>>>> Heh so I was going to fix this after the hole punching stuff. The fact is btrfs
>>>>> maps everything that is ok to do in one IO via get_blocks(). So all we need to
>>>>> do is add another DIO_ flag to tell us to treat each get_blocks() call as
>>>>> discrete. I wanted to use buffer_boundary for this, but I think it's too
>>>>> drastic of a change for people who already use buffer_boundary();
>>>>>
>>>>> What happens today is that say we map 4k, we do submit_page_section, but if this
>>>>> is our first bit of IO we just set dio->cur_page and such and then loop again.
>>>>> Say there is 4k-hole-4k, we do the next mapping and set buffer_boundary again,
>>>>> and come into submit_page_section and because cur_page is set, we do
>>>>> dio_send_cur_page. Because there is no dio->bio we setup a new bio, but when we
>>>>> do that we clear dio->boundary, and leave the bio all setup. So the next time
>>>>> we loop around the tail 4k gets added to our previously setup bio and boom we
>>>>> hit this problem with btrfs.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we can add a DIO_GET_BLOCKS_DISCRETE or some other such non-sense then we can
>>>>> easily kill all the logical offset code I had and just make some simple changes
>>>>> to make the DIO stuff work for us. All we do is in get_more_blocks we do
>>>>>
>>>>> if ((dio->flags& DIO_GET_BLOCKS_DISCRETE)&& dio->bio)
>>>>> dio_submit_bio(dio);
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Right after I went to bed I realized this should be
>>>>
>>>> if (dio->flags& DIO_GET_BLOCKS_DISCRETE) {
>>>> if (dio->cur_page) {
>>>> dio_send_cur_page(dio);
>>>> page_cache_release(dio->cur_page);
>>>> dio->cur_page = NULL;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> if (dio->bio)
>>>> dio_submit_bio(dio);
>>>> }
>>>
>>> As far as I know, get_block() can not make sure the IO doesn't span the chunks or
>>> stripes. Maybe we can do this check in get_blocks(). In this way, we needn't change
>>> vfs.
>>>
>>
>> Right thats the idea, if we can't span chunks/stripes we should be doing that
>> limiting in our get_blocks call and that way we don't have to screw with the
>> generic direct io stuff too much. Thanks,
>
> In this case we're adding complexity to the O_DIRECT mapping code, when
> we really should be adding it to the btrfs submit bio hook. It can
> easily break up the bio into smaller units, which will leave us with a
> smaller number of get_blocks calls overall.
>
> I'm working that out now.
Do you mean you are fixing this bug now?
Thanks
Miao
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-11-18 1:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-11-17 4:18 [PATCH 1/3] direct-io: add a hook for the fs to provide its own bio merging check function Miao Xie
2010-11-17 7:06 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17 9:37 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17 10:11 ` Miao Xie
2010-11-17 12:50 ` Josef Bacik
2010-11-17 16:55 ` Chris Mason
2010-11-18 1:18 ` Miao Xie [this message]
2010-11-18 1:24 ` Chris Mason
2010-11-18 1:33 ` Miao Xie
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=4CE47EDA.90205@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=miaox@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=chris.mason@oracle.com \
--cc=josef@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=t-itoh@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).