* Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC]: Challenges and Ideas in Transitioning EXT* and other FS to iomap
2024-02-24 10:19 ` [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC]: Challenges and Ideas in Transitioning EXT* and other FS to iomap Ritesh Harjani
@ 2024-03-06 11:09 ` Ritesh Harjani
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Ritesh Harjani @ 2024-03-06 11:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: lsf-pc
Cc: linux-fsdevel, Jan Kara, Theodore Ts'o, Matthew Wilcox,
linux-ext4
Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@gmail.com> writes:
> "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@gmail.com> writes:
>
> ++ linux-ext4
>
>> In continuation from last year's efforts on conversion of ext* filesystems to iomap,
>> I would like to propose an LSFMM session on the said topic. Last year's session
>> was mainly centered around documentation discussion around iomap (so that it can help others
>> converting their filesystems to iomap), and I think we now have a kernelnewbies page [1]
>> which can provide good details on how one can start transitioning their filesystem to iomap
>> interface.
>>
>> Note, ext2/ext4 filesystems direct-io path now utilizes iomap where ext2
>> DIO conversion happened last year during LSFMM [2] [3]. I have also submitted patches
>> for ext2 buffered-io path for regular files to move to iomap and thereby enabling
>> large folio support to it. Along similar lines there are also patches around EXT4
>> buffered-io conversion to iomap.
>>
>> Some of the challenges
>> =======================
>> 1. For EXT2 directory handling which uses page cache and buffer heads, moving that path to
>> iomap has challenges with writeback path since iomap also uses folio->private to keep some
>> of its internal state (iomap_folio_state).
>> 2. One other thing which was pointed out by Matthew is the BH_Boundary handling currently missing
>> in iomap. This can lead to non-optimized data I/O patterns causing performance penalty.
>> 3. Filesystems need a mechanism to validate cached logical->physical block translations
>> in iomap writeback code (can this be lifted to common code?)
>> 4. Another missing piece from iomap is the metadata handling for filesystems. There is no
>> interface which iomap provides that the FS can utilize to move away from buffer heads
>> for its metadata operations. It can be argued that it is not the responsibility of iomap, however
>> filesystems do need a mechanism for their metadata handling operations.
>>
>> Proposal
>> =========
>> In this talk I would like to discuss about the efforts, challenges & the lessons learnt in doing the conversion of
>> ext2's DIO and buffered-io paths to iomap, which might help others in conversion of their filesystem.
>> I would also like to have a discussion on the current open challenges we have in converting ext2 (buffered-io path)
>> and discuss on what ideas people have, which we can consider for transitioning ext* and other filesystems to iomap.
>>
>> PS: As we speak, I am in the process of rebasing ext2 bufferred-io path to latest upstream kernel.
>> It's mostly done and I am also looking into some of the open problems listed by community.
I have rebased the RFC over the latest upstream and implemented the seq
counter approach that was roughly discussed in the RFC patch here [1].
Please find the latest tree at my github [2], in case if anyone is
interested in checking it out.
Currently I am running some tests on this tree as we speak. Post that
will look into BH_Boundary problem.
[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/8734wnj53k.fsf@doe.com/
[2]: https://github.com/riteshharjani/linux/commits/ext2-iomap-lsfmm-rfcv2/
-ritesh
>>
>>
>> References
>> ============
>> [1]: https://kernelnewbies.org/KernelProjects/iomap
>> [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/cover.1682069716.git.ritesh.list@gmail.com/
>> [3]: https://lwn.net/Articles/935934/
>> [4]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/cover.1700505907.git.ritesh.list@gmail.com/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread