From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To: "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Aravinda Herle <araherle@in.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFCv2 1/3] iomap: Move creation of iomap_page early in __iomap_write_begin
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2023 21:00:01 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Y9gv0YV9V6gR9l3F@casper.infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230130202150.pfohy5yg6dtu64ce@rh-tp>
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 01:51:50AM +0530, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote:
> > > Thus the iop structure will only gets allocated at the time of writeback
> > > in iomap_writepage_map(). This I think, was a not problem till now since
> > > we anyway only track uptodate status in iop (no support of tracking
> > > dirty bitmap status which later patches will add), and we also end up
> > > setting all the bits in iomap_page_create(), if the page is uptodate.
> >
> > delayed iop allocation is a feature and not a bug. We might have to
> > refine the criteria for sub-page dirty tracking, but in general having
> > the iop allocates is a memory and performance overhead and should be
> > avoided as much as possible. In fact I still have some unfinished
> > work to allocate it even more lazily.
>
> So, what I meant here was that the commit[1] chaged the behavior/functionality
> without indenting to. I agree it's not a bug.
It didn't change the behaviour or functionality. It broke your patches,
but it certainly doesn't deserve its own commit reverting it -- because
it's not wrong.
> But when I added dirty bitmap tracking support, I couldn't understand for
> sometime on why were we allocating iop only at the time of writeback.
> And it was due to a small line change which somehow slipped into this commit [1].
> Hence I made this as a seperate patch so that it doesn't slip through again w/o
> getting noticed/review.
It didn't "slip through". It was intended.
> Thanks for the info on the lazy allocation work. Yes, though it is not a bug, but
> with subpage dirty tracking in iop->state[], if we end up allocating iop only
> at the time of writeback, than that might cause some performance degradation
> compared to, if we allocat iop at ->write_begin() and mark the required dirty
> bit ranges in ->write_end(). Like how we do in this patch series.
> (Ofcourse it is true only for bs < ps use case).
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220623175157.1715274-5-shr@fb.com/
You absolutely can allocate it in iomap_write_begin, but you can avoid
allocating it until writeback time if (pos, len) entirely overlap the
folio. ie:
if (pos > folio_pos(folio) ||
pos + len < folio_pos(folio) + folio_size(folio))
iop = iomap_page_create(iter->inode, folio, iter->flags, false);
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-30 21:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-30 16:14 [RFCv2 0/3] iomap: Add support for subpage dirty state tracking to improve write performance Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2023-01-30 16:14 ` [RFCv2 1/3] iomap: Move creation of iomap_page early in __iomap_write_begin Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2023-01-30 17:02 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-01-30 20:21 ` Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2023-01-30 21:00 ` Matthew Wilcox [this message]
2023-01-31 18:37 ` Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2023-01-31 18:48 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-31 20:00 ` Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2023-01-30 16:14 ` [RFCv2 2/3] iomap: Change uptodate variable name to state Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2023-01-30 21:56 ` Dave Chinner
2023-01-30 22:24 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-31 15:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-01-31 18:05 ` Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2023-01-30 16:14 ` [RFCv2 3/3] iomap: Support subpage size dirty tracking to improve write performance Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2023-01-30 17:16 ` Christoph Hellwig
2023-01-30 18:01 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-30 20:44 ` Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2023-01-30 20:27 ` Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2023-01-30 17:54 ` Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-30 20:34 ` Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2023-01-30 18:10 ` [RFCv2 0/3] iomap: Add support for subpage dirty state " Matthew Wilcox
2023-01-30 21:01 ` Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2023-02-02 4:45 ` Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
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=Y9gv0YV9V6gR9l3F@casper.infradead.org \
--to=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=araherle@in.ibm.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ritesh.list@gmail.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 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).