From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To: Sagi Grimberg <sagi@grimberg.me>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Trond Myklebust <trondmy@kernel.org>,
Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] nfs: don't reuse partially completed requests in nfs_lock_and_join_requests
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 06:25:19 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240703042519.GC24050@lst.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1bae89b5-0f11-4417-81f3-8fce05a9c751@grimberg.me>
On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 11:07:13AM +0300, Sagi Grimberg wrote:
> On 01/07/2024 8:26, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> When NFS requests are split into sub-requests, nfs_inode_remove_request
>> calls nfs_page_group_sync_on_bit to set PG_REMOVE on this sub-request and
>> only completes the head requests once PG_REMOVE is set on all requests.
>> This means that when nfs_lock_and_join_requests sees a PG_REMOVE bit, I/O
>> on the request is in progress and has partially completed. If such a
>> request is returned to nfs_try_to_update_request, it could be extended
>> with the newly dirtied region and I/O for the combined range will be
>> re-scheduled, leading to extra I/O.
>
> Probably worth noting in the change log that large folios makes this
> potentially much
> worse?
That assumes large folios actually create more subrequest. One big
reason to create subrequests is flexfiles mirroring, which of course
doesn't change with large folio. The other is that if ->pg_test
doesn't allow the nfs_page to cover everything, which is roughly
bound by a page array allocation and for PNFS the layout segment
size, and the chance for that to fail could very slightly increase.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-07-03 4:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-07-01 5:26 NFS buffered write cleanup Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-01 5:26 ` [PATCH 1/7] nfs: remove dead code for the old swap over NFS implementation Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-02 7:37 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-01 5:26 ` [PATCH 2/7] nfs: remove nfs_folio_private_request Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-02 7:38 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-01 5:26 ` [PATCH 3/7] nfs: simplify nfs_folio_find_and_lock_request Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-02 7:54 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-03 4:19 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-01 5:26 ` [PATCH 4/7] nfs: fold nfs_folio_find_and_lock_request into nfs_lock_and_join_requests Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-02 7:57 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-03 4:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-01 5:26 ` [PATCH 5/7] nfs: fold nfs_page_group_lock_subrequests " Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-02 7:59 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-01 5:26 ` [PATCH 6/7] nfs: move nfs_wait_on_request to write.c Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-02 7:59 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-01 5:26 ` [PATCH 7/7] nfs: don't reuse partially completed requests in nfs_lock_and_join_requests Christoph Hellwig
2024-07-02 8:07 ` Sagi Grimberg
2024-07-03 4:25 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2024-07-05 5:35 ` NFS buffered write cleanup Christoph Hellwig
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=20240703042519.GC24050@lst.de \
--to=hch@lst.de \
--cc=anna@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sagi@grimberg.me \
--cc=trondmy@kernel.org \
/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