From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 497ADC433EF for ; Sun, 24 Jul 2022 02:14:06 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=8K54egOeZsU6zxzJfbBEEuBhwNhuCW0/visvvZQJEhI=; b=cHOzSGrR6+ki8KfsPVQrW8mL04 JEzSU/uxe/GjgH0+4Ei+ubYSNkyIa0SfJk3OOGKKJekgCJBcSaUZ7Urrj6UWIFSLB5+Y74SiHxNfk a95i8FdPlAngIQ/IfXWNQ/9O0iI+5uyq6dRlGls83nEBRwh/liR1GaFlmUf1kRDxXrJkZzHxO/Vo6 7wVXXlrjwxwrbwW6VGeHPWOW3KG7PTvAlUoh6s/ms59LEvaezW87trtakHQFG1r81TNir+Wbzh/Y7 Md480EtP6C/+ubCB9EQYzTaGflo7/UXXTYnCiWtEfgiq7nhW/NK881I/7Iww4QTNbCTf2v7QTw93w lweAyAlw==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1oFR84-00A81R-Od; Sun, 24 Jul 2022 02:14:00 +0000 Received: from sin.source.kernel.org ([2604:1380:40e1:4800::1]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.94.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1oFR7x-00A7vd-KC for linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org; Sun, 24 Jul 2022 02:13:55 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sin.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC31ACE0AC8; Sun, 24 Jul 2022 02:13:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFE6AC341C0; Sun, 24 Jul 2022 02:13:45 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1658628826; bh=og9ze5loOAAMQT6P8ZLrl2EjWlyd5ZdK+lsrPP1Q3uY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=WgXZLvn4EVhaB1K+jUHEdB54noAuv88logZVknkjhZV5wrUDoV+rBUts6Dm5oXpsI TW1LEcZaQ2351UKby3kmW7tDrs8OIRaMNuVFrLwVDUpICTymY4jCMut49hvTg3g72S xNS097YFbcZSJuzsMWUPnstSSvbvDdqmzmyK5ksY1nog1MThwTda5OcavA5PXynI8S fEekRQBpVhNSyLgmFSc8nUrdKf1l5JXstUiBrMjEyllJmaG5sE7q6SDc1/JCdVT1se OgRaRK0wYcaJIKJjLRKhrGbwQZ9H9CKndQkfWXsa396bolC92NI8uc418gW5FwPdjd PW/nK58zhUFFQ== Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2022 19:13:44 -0700 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Eric Biggers Cc: Keith Busch , Keith Busch , Chao Yu , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, axboe@kernel.dk, Kernel Team , hch@lst.de, bvanassche@acm.org, damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, pankydev8@gmail.com, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 11/11] iomap: add support for dma aligned direct-io Message-ID: References: <20220610195830.3574005-1-kbusch@fb.com> <20220610195830.3574005-12-kbusch@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20220723_191354_058938_741B3890 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 52.03 ) X-BeenThere: linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "Linux-nvme" Errors-To: linux-nvme-bounces+linux-nvme=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On 07/22, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 08:43:55AM -0600, Keith Busch wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:36:01AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > [+f2fs list and maintainers] > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 12:58:30PM -0700, Keith Busch wrote: > > > > From: Keith Busch > > > > > > > > Use the address alignment requirements from the block_device for direct > > > > io instead of requiring addresses be aligned to the block size. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Keith Busch > > > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig > > > > --- > > > > fs/iomap/direct-io.c | 4 ++-- > > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c > > > > index 370c3241618a..5d098adba443 100644 > > > > --- a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c > > > > +++ b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c > > > > @@ -242,7 +242,6 @@ static loff_t iomap_dio_bio_iter(const struct iomap_iter *iter, > > > > struct inode *inode = iter->inode; > > > > unsigned int blkbits = blksize_bits(bdev_logical_block_size(iomap->bdev)); > > > > unsigned int fs_block_size = i_blocksize(inode), pad; > > > > - unsigned int align = iov_iter_alignment(dio->submit.iter); > > > > loff_t length = iomap_length(iter); > > > > loff_t pos = iter->pos; > > > > unsigned int bio_opf; > > > > @@ -253,7 +252,8 @@ static loff_t iomap_dio_bio_iter(const struct iomap_iter *iter, > > > > size_t copied = 0; > > > > size_t orig_count; > > > > > > > > - if ((pos | length | align) & ((1 << blkbits) - 1)) > > > > + if ((pos | length) & ((1 << blkbits) - 1) || > > > > + !bdev_iter_is_aligned(iomap->bdev, dio->submit.iter)) > > > > return -EINVAL; > > > > > > > > if (iomap->type == IOMAP_UNWRITTEN) { > > > > > > I noticed that this patch is going to break the following logic in > > > f2fs_should_use_dio() in fs/f2fs/file.c: > > > > > > /* > > > * Direct I/O not aligned to the disk's logical_block_size will be > > > * attempted, but will fail with -EINVAL. > > > * > > > * f2fs additionally requires that direct I/O be aligned to the > > > * filesystem block size, which is often a stricter requirement. > > > * However, f2fs traditionally falls back to buffered I/O on requests > > > * that are logical_block_size-aligned but not fs-block aligned. > > > * > > > * The below logic implements this behavior. > > > */ > > > align = iocb->ki_pos | iov_iter_alignment(iter); > > > if (!IS_ALIGNED(align, i_blocksize(inode)) && > > > IS_ALIGNED(align, bdev_logical_block_size(inode->i_sb->s_bdev))) > > > return false; > > > > > > return true; > > > > > > So, f2fs assumes that __iomap_dio_rw() returns an error if the I/O isn't logical > > > block aligned. This patch changes that. The result is that DIO will sometimes > > > proceed in cases where the I/O doesn't have the fs block alignment required by > > > f2fs for all DIO. > > > > > > Does anyone have any thoughts about what f2fs should be doing here? I think > > > it's weird that f2fs has different behaviors for different degrees of > > > misalignment: fail with EINVAL if not logical block aligned, else fallback to > > > buffered I/O if not fs block aligned. I think it should be one convention or > > > the other. Any opinions about which one it should be? > > > > It looks like f2fs just falls back to buffered IO for this condition without > > reaching the new code in iomap_dio_bio_iter(). > > No. It's a bit subtle, so read the code and what I'm saying carefully. f2fs > only supports 4K aligned DIO and normally falls back to buffered I/O; however, > for DIO that is *very* misaligned (not even LBS aligned) it returns EINVAL > instead. And it relies on __iomap_dio_rw() returning that EINVAL. > > Relying on __iomap_dio_rw() in that way is definitely a bad design on f2fs's > part (and I messed that up when switching f2fs from fs/direct-io.c to iomap). > The obvious fix is to just have f2fs do the LBS alignment check itself. > > But I think that f2fs shouldn't have different behavior for different levels of > misalignment in the first place, so I was wondering if anyone had any thoughts > on which behavior (EINVAL or fallback to buffered I/O) should be standardized on > in all cases, at least for f2fs. There was some discussion about this sort of > thing for ext4 several years ago on the thread > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-ext4/1461472078-20104-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu/T/#u, > but it didn't really reach a conclusion. I'm wondering if the f2fs maintainers > have any thoughts about why the f2fs behavior is as it is. I.e. is it just > accidental, or are there specific reasons... If there's a generic way to deal with this, I have no objection to follow it. Initially, I remember I was trying to match the ext4 rule, but at some point, I lost the track. > > - Eric