From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail-oa1-f45.google.com (mail-oa1-f45.google.com [209.85.160.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9B89E21764C for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 18:48:00 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.160.45 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731437284; cv=none; b=nxLrTCX6PpvHimser8pa7GS0RoCuNdgt85zbsc8A6QPM/Uoae/HJLefQizFw22MemhQim5TCXLDpcRvMerMiMzuJOALzHYIJSrVhf8ABfPHShoE4fPZ1tcGKYw0H0mh8I4s9+6Nw8nscmFy9FZIt3CiSNjPy+PCioSxsUEVr0D4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1731437284; c=relaxed/simple; bh=AYu6tM5ynIawKqMjM+E4hN+OaSd/oaQv1ZLr8hqDLcw=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=q7aH1S2OREbXa2DdXCAnQhIe/ZgYGweNmONc619GM4WE90pb532wF4rCiWr/E3tRhdZLr8/OkzzgN6LeDzqnESEeOfqhikQv7oWrQp+/MVh80hLjFzBqV/jE3C6q2Ei6uHH5vU1mvauUir5yglLkI7f7lrJQFN4PdIqJlWB/+Lc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.dk; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.dk; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b=caSx4oKt; arc=none smtp.client-ip=209.85.160.45 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.dk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kernel.dk Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.i=@kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.b="caSx4oKt" Received: by mail-oa1-f45.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-2958f5387d2so1711877fac.0 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 10:48:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1731437279; x=1732042079; darn=vger.kernel.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NEKWtbV5azCN1LS/TrOFInpSTESMK9RCRhSvphgR+zE=; b=caSx4oKtmrQnPiyw17x0o0KCIcSdXPDLG5uPL1f0G2zGbUKsz71wdhVPXAf+DwOG/4 AVfqb6MtbcIxM3YRR/u2DvQ+fbR+FgOLuOh2h9ZibBLeB8r8couIsGtWpqE67aTJrWZ0 cuwuKPW/Ks+iiSNBp9P82kI10kVc8uVYTfKLPck84BBte2nT+Yq6L5I6mF8zraChgP/N HiZnHX/bp3rqReJBJg16vs+0XDEiKjoYIIBo0g1gaqO9UW1a8YkIZZhbg8Td+fq9+cHA WhkyNBYK0UyxntaaQ+feaGPvIXlX1zDLuU6AFPh1aXkbt7lwQdUL4YzNhhqPkwDQYu9X vhmQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1731437279; x=1732042079; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=NEKWtbV5azCN1LS/TrOFInpSTESMK9RCRhSvphgR+zE=; b=hpWonGMIxLBhazLwAGNwN4iRhrFwbWkrI3z4OmgS/zbEgloS1pUAFEeUoyOO7ij0i7 S6b+U8lLzYcS0mcFahyza+wZ2KNDSG4Ljf/2fj+rB8MQwyq4Kd9yrKTwS6Zv07dU1/HG uBIYvQfW/Tt1Y3OiNgknpV3tWjwoebM4k0zV/uuksPzG7vg6GnzPHKEpK91uQNsm6kP1 Jvsmm/f5enFp5ByEEMWp2yF4+itBNT/bWkkz4mdtXV8ESNoFelMQ+/rlYsKHhGLtfWx2 gCPV8whlkpl+8OYNuqNA6UXcqju1+aVJyFocToEa8MI3S+V9j8iw9ipCm0nBbtJlsJqu l85w== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCWJIrw9LqdsdST4FQJv1OsIdG7yaYxlAlf1hsAolCiykEkvdOF+vA2YRPZKT1cf/R8dMdaEeMgmvDZR@vger.kernel.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzXFp0vw8rH6DdxvVSgclAuxxAfmwMu+TmwmPWg6hhbbqLr6Oq3 lPDjFCdfdYrQg1hln6zTD/gExfAPpnT4UaXTMJ7AqULtwh4J4gCjsh3T0zST3vs= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEbUQIAv8rwvNy1b5k48spMrO6qHPjvfMhK8WTkm9KlJBHwjMMwhaZ9S+HNwCgrodi6AerXxg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:20a:b0:25a:eca3:6b5e with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-2956004793fmr13932152fac.9.1731437279605; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 10:47:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.116] ([96.43.243.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 586e51a60fabf-295e8eb8c53sm14182fac.8.2024.11.12.10.47.58 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 12 Nov 2024 10:47:59 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <58ebc5a8-941b-4c3d-a3b2-3985d7eeea30@kernel.dk> Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 11:47:57 -0700 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/16] ext4: add RWF_UNCACHED write support To: Brian Foster Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, clm@meta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, willy@infradead.org, kirill@shutemov.name, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org References: <20241111234842.2024180-1-axboe@kernel.dk> <20241111234842.2024180-13-axboe@kernel.dk> Content-Language: en-US From: Jens Axboe In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 11/12/24 11:11 AM, Brian Foster wrote: > On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 10:13:12AM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >> On 11/12/24 9:36 AM, Brian Foster wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 04:37:39PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >>>> IOCB_UNCACHED IO needs to prune writeback regions on IO completion, >>>> and hence need the worker punt that ext4 also does for unwritten >>>> extents. Add an io_end flag to manage that. >>>> >>>> If foliop is set to foliop_uncached in ext4_write_begin(), then set >>>> FGP_UNCACHED so that __filemap_get_folio() will mark newly created >>>> folios as uncached. That in turn will make writeback completion drop >>>> these ranges from the page cache. >>>> >>>> Now that ext4 supports both uncached reads and writes, add the fop_flag >>>> FOP_UNCACHED to enable it. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe >>>> --- >>>> fs/ext4/ext4.h | 1 + >>>> fs/ext4/file.c | 2 +- >>>> fs/ext4/inline.c | 7 ++++++- >>>> fs/ext4/inode.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- >>>> fs/ext4/page-io.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------ >>>> 5 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >>>> >>> ... >>>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c >>>> index 54bdd4884fe6..afae3ab64c9e 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c >>>> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c >>>> @@ -1138,6 +1138,7 @@ static int ext4_write_begin(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping, >>>> int ret, needed_blocks; >>>> handle_t *handle; >>>> int retries = 0; >>>> + fgf_t fgp_flags; >>>> struct folio *folio; >>>> pgoff_t index; >>>> unsigned from, to; >>>> @@ -1164,6 +1165,15 @@ static int ext4_write_begin(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping, >>>> return 0; >>>> } >>>> >>>> + /* >>>> + * Set FGP_WRITEBEGIN, and FGP_UNCACHED if foliop contains >>>> + * foliop_uncached. That's how generic_perform_write() informs us >>>> + * that this is an uncached write. >>>> + */ >>>> + fgp_flags = FGP_WRITEBEGIN; >>>> + if (*foliop == foliop_uncached) >>>> + fgp_flags |= FGP_UNCACHED; >>>> + >>>> /* >>>> * __filemap_get_folio() can take a long time if the >>>> * system is thrashing due to memory pressure, or if the folio >>>> @@ -1172,7 +1182,7 @@ static int ext4_write_begin(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping, >>>> * the folio (if needed) without using GFP_NOFS. >>>> */ >>>> retry_grab: >>>> - folio = __filemap_get_folio(mapping, index, FGP_WRITEBEGIN, >>>> + folio = __filemap_get_folio(mapping, index, fgp_flags, >>>> mapping_gfp_mask(mapping)); >>>> if (IS_ERR(folio)) >>>> return PTR_ERR(folio); >>> >>> JFYI, I notice that ext4 cycles the folio lock here in this path and >>> thus follows up with a couple checks presumably to accommodate that. One >>> is whether i_mapping has changed, which I assume means uncached state >>> would have been handled/cleared externally somewhere..? I.e., if an >>> uncached folio is somehow truncated/freed without ever having been >>> written back? >>> >>> The next is a folio_wait_stable() call "in case writeback began ..." >>> It's not immediately clear to me if that is possible here, but taking >>> that at face value, is it an issue if we were to create an uncached >>> folio, drop the folio lock, then have some other task dirty and >>> writeback the folio (due to a sync write or something), then have >>> writeback completion invalidate the folio before we relock it here? >> >> I don't either of those are an issue. The UNCACHED flag will only be set >> on a newly created folio, it does not get inherited for folios that >> already exist. >> > > Right.. but what I was wondering for that latter case is if the folio is > created here by ext4, so uncached is set before it is unlocked. > > On second look I guess the uncached completion invalidation should clear > mapping and thus trigger the retry logic here. That seems reasonable > enough, but is it still possible to race with writeback? > > Maybe this is a better way to ask.. what happens if a write completes to > an uncached folio that is already under writeback? For example, uncached > write 1 completes, submits for writeback and returns to userspace. Then > write 2 begins and redirties the same folio before the uncached > writeback completes. > > If I follow correctly, if write 2 is also uncached, it eventually blocks > in writeback submission (folio_prepare_writeback() -> > folio_wait_writeback()). It looks like folio lock is held there, so > presumably that would bypass the completion time invalidation in > folio_end_uncached(). But what if write 2 was not uncached or perhaps > writeback completion won the race for folio lock vs. the write side > (between locking the folio for dirtying and later for writeback > submission)? Does anything prevent invalidation of the folio before the > second write is submitted for writeback? > > IOW, I'm wondering if the uncached completion time invalidation also > needs a folio dirty check..? Ah ok, I see what you mean. If the folio is dirty, the unmapping will fail. But I guess with the recent change, we'll actually unmap it first. I'll add the folio dirty check, thanks! -- Jens Axboe