From: Jamie Lokier <jamie@shareable.org>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [rfc] fsync_range?
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:02:57 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090121120257.GB8609@shareable.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090121062306.GK24891@wotan.suse.de>
Nick Piggin wrote:
> Again it comes back to the whole writeout thing, which makes it more
> constraining on the kernel to optimise.
Cute :-)
It was intended to make it easier to optimise, but maybe it failed.
> For example, my fsync "livelock" avoidance patches did the following:
>
> 1. find all pages which are dirty or under writeout first.
> 2. write out the dirty pages.
> 3. wait for our set of pages.
>
> Simple, obvious, and the kernel can optimise this well because the
> userspace has asked for a high level request "make this data safe"
> rather than low level directives. We can't do this same nice simple
> sequence with sync_file_range because SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_AFTER
> means we have to wait for all writeout pages in the range, including
> unrelated ones, after the dirty writeout. SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_BEFORE
> means we have to wait for clean writeout pages before we even start
> doing real work.
As noted in my other mail just now, although sync_file_range() is
described as though it does the three bulk operations consecutively, I
think it wouldn't be too shocking to think the intended semantics
_could_ be:
"wait and initiate writeous _as if_ we did, for each page _in parallel_ {
if (SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_BEFORE && page->writeout) wait(page)
if (SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE) start_writeout(page)
if (SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_AFTER && writeout) wait(page)
}"
That permits many strategies, and I think one of them is the nice
livelock-avoiding fsync you describe up above.
You might be able to squeeze the sync_file_range() flags into that by
chopping it up like this. Btw, you omitted step 1.5 "wait for dirty
pages which are already under writeout", but it's made explicit here:
1. find all pages which are dirty or under writeout first,
and remember which of them are dirty _and_ under writeout (DW).
2. if (SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WRITE)
write out the dirty pages not in DW.
3. if (SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_BEFORE) {
wait for the set of pages in DW.
write out the pages in DW.
}
4. if (SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_BEFORE || SYNC_FILE_RANGE_WAIT_AFTER)
wait for our set of pages.
However, maybe the flags aren't all that useful really, and maybe
sync_file_range() could be replaced by a stub which ignores the flags
and calls fsync_range().
-- Jamie
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-01-21 12:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-01-20 16:47 [rfc] fsync_range? Nick Piggin
2009-01-20 18:31 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-01-20 21:25 ` Bryan Henderson
2009-01-20 22:42 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-01-21 19:43 ` Bryan Henderson
2009-01-21 21:08 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-01-21 22:44 ` Bryan Henderson
2009-01-21 23:31 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-01-21 1:36 ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-21 19:58 ` Bryan Henderson
2009-01-21 20:53 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-01-21 22:14 ` Bryan Henderson
2009-01-21 22:30 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-01-22 1:52 ` Bryan Henderson
2009-01-22 3:41 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-01-21 1:29 ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-21 3:15 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-01-21 3:48 ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-21 5:24 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-01-21 6:16 ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-21 11:18 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-01-21 11:41 ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-21 12:09 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-01-21 4:16 ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-21 4:59 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-01-21 6:23 ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-21 12:02 ` Jamie Lokier [this message]
2009-01-21 12:13 ` Theodore Tso
2009-01-21 12:37 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-01-21 14:12 ` Theodore Tso
2009-01-21 14:35 ` Chris Mason
2009-01-21 15:58 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-01-21 20:41 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-01-21 21:23 ` jim owens
2009-01-21 21:59 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-01-21 23:08 ` btrfs O_DIRECT was " jim owens
2009-01-22 0:06 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-01-22 13:50 ` jim owens
2009-01-22 21:18 ` Florian Weimer
2009-01-22 21:23 ` Florian Weimer
2009-01-21 3:25 ` Jamie Lokier
2009-01-21 3:52 ` Nick Piggin
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=20090121120257.GB8609@shareable.org \
--to=jamie@shareable.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
/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).