From: Kazuo Ito <ito_kazuo_g3@lab.ntt.co.jp>
To: Trond Myklebust <trondmy@gmail.com>,
Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@redhat.com>
Cc: Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@netapp.com>,
linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp>,
watanabe.hiroyuki@lab.ntt.co.jp
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pNFS: Avoid read-modify-write for page-aligned full page write
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 13:34:28 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bea45df0-0bf1-048d-e842-7fd7eb0f2b34@lab.ntt.co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <17e929a2eea3d2c33dcd3d2c9b8d8a932568be47.camel@hammerspace.com>
On 2019/02/08 23:58, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Fri, 2019-02-08 at 16:54 +0900, 伊藤和夫 wrote:
>> On 2019/02/07 22:37, Benjamin Coddington wrote:
>>> On 7 Feb 2019, at 3:12, Kazuo Ito wrote:
>>> [snipped]
>>>> @@ -299,8 +305,10 @@ static int nfs_want_read_modify_write(struct
>>>> file
>>>> *file, struct page *page,
>>>> unsigned int end = offset + len;
>>>>
>>>> if (pnfs_ld_read_whole_page(file->f_mapping->host)) {
>>>> - if (!PageUptodate(page))
>>>> - return 1;
>>>> + if (!PageUptodate(page)) {
>>>> + if (pglen && (end < pglen || offset))
>>>> + return 1;
>>>> + }
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> This looks right. I think that a static inline bool
>>> nfs_write_covers_page,
>>> or full_page_write or similar might make sense here, as we do the
>>> same test
>>> just below, and would make the code easier to quickly understand.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Benjamin Coddington <bcodding@redhat.com>
>> >
>> > Ben
>>
>> As per Ben's comment, I made the check for full page write a static
>> inline function and both the block-oriented and the non-block-
>> oriented paths call it.
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/file.c b/fs/nfs/file.c
>> index 29553fdba8af..458c77ccf274 100644
>> --- a/fs/nfs/file.c
>> +++ b/fs/nfs/file.c
>> @@ -276,6 +276,12 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nfs_file_fsync);
>> * then a modify/write/read cycle when writing to a page in the
>> * page cache.
>> *
>> + * Some pNFS layout drivers can only read/write at a certain block
>> + * granularity like all block devices and therefore we must perform
>> + * read/modify/write whenever a page hasn't read yet and the data
>> + * to be written there is not aligned to a block boundary and/or
>> + * smaller than the block size.
>> + *
>> * The modify/write/read cycle may occur if a page is read before
>> * being completely filled by the writer. In this situation, the
>> * page must be completely written to stable storage on the server
>> @@ -291,15 +297,23 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(nfs_file_fsync);
>> * and that the new data won't completely replace the old data in
>> * that range of the file.
>> */
>> -static int nfs_want_read_modify_write(struct file *file, struct page
>> *page,
>> - loff_t pos, unsigned len)
>> +static bool nfs_full_page_write(struct page *page, loff_t pos,
>> unsigned
>> len)
>> {
>> unsigned int pglen = nfs_page_length(page);
>> unsigned int offset = pos & (PAGE_SIZE - 1);
>> unsigned int end = offset + len;
>>
>> + if (pglen && ((end < pglen) || offset))
>> + return 0;
>> + return 1;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int nfs_want_read_modify_write(struct file *file, struct page
>> *page,
>> + loff_t pos, unsigned len)
>> +{
>> if (pnfs_ld_read_whole_page(file->f_mapping->host)) {
>> - if (!PageUptodate(page))
>> + if (!PageUptodate(page) &&
>> + !nfs_full_page_write(page, pos, len))
>> return 1;
>> return 0;
>> }
>> @@ -307,8 +321,7 @@ static int nfs_want_read_modify_write(struct
>> file
>> *file, struct page *page,
>> if ((file->f_mode & FMODE_READ) && /* open for read? */
>> !PageUptodate(page) && /* Uptodate? */
>> !PagePrivate(page) && /* i/o request already? */
>> - pglen && /* valid bytes of
>> file? */
>> - (end < pglen || offset)) /* replace all valid
>> bytes? */
>> + !nfs_full_page_write(page, pos, len))
>> return 1;
>> return 0;
>> }
>
> How about adding a separate
>
> if (PageUptodate(page) || nfs_full_page_write())
> return 0;
>
> before the check for pNFS?
>
> That means we won't have to duplicate those for the pNFS block and
> ordinary case, and it improves code clarity.
Yes, it is much better, and
> BTW: Why doesn't the pNFS case check for PagePrivate(page)? That looks
> like a bug which would cause the existing write to get corrupted.
> If so, we should move that check too into the common code.
It's been that way since the check for
pnfs_ld_read_whole_page(file->f_mapping->host) was added there.
As you pointed out, it shouldn't try to initiate read when there's
an outstanding write.
So, I'll update the patch with these changes, including check for
ongoing I/O, and come up with newer test results in a couple of days.
--
kazuo ito (ito_kazuo_g3@iecl.ntt.co.jp)
NTT OSS Center
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-02-12 4:34 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-02-07 8:12 [PATCH] pNFS: Avoid read-modify-write for page-aligned full page write Kazuo Ito
2019-02-07 13:37 ` Benjamin Coddington
2019-02-08 7:54 ` 伊藤和夫
2019-02-08 14:58 ` Trond Myklebust
2019-02-12 4:34 ` Kazuo Ito [this message]
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=bea45df0-0bf1-048d-e842-7fd7eb0f2b34@lab.ntt.co.jp \
--to=ito_kazuo_g3@lab.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=anna.schumaker@netapp.com \
--cc=bcodding@redhat.com \
--cc=konishi.ryusuke@lab.ntt.co.jp \
--cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=trondmy@gmail.com \
--cc=watanabe.hiroyuki@lab.ntt.co.jp \
/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