linux-xfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
	Chi Zhiling <chizhiling@163.com>,
	Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
	cem@kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chi Zhiling <chizhiling@kylinos.cn>,
	John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: Remove i_rwsem lock in buffered read
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 20:36:48 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z4iM4IJj53g-mbGV@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Z4grgXw2iw0lgKqD@dread.disaster.area>

On Thu, Jan 16, 2025 at 08:41:21AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > to finish, or by simply forcing buffered I/O when direct I/O would
> > conflict. 
> 
> Right. We really don't want to downgrade to buffered IO if we can
> help it, though.

Of course we never want it.  But if we do have invalidation failures
and thus still folios in the page cache it might the least bad of
all the bad options.

> It's much harder to sanely serialise DIO against buffered writes
> this way, because i_dio_count only forms a submission barrier in
> conjunction with the i_rwsem being held exclusively. e.g. ongoing
> DIO would result in the buffered write being indefinitely delayed.

Or any other exclusive lock taken by all submitters, yes.

> I think the model and method that bcachefs uses is probably the best
> way to move forward - the "two-state exclusive shared" lock which it
> uses to do buffered vs direct exclusion is a simple, easy way to
> handle this problem. The same-state shared locking fast path is a
> single atomic cmpxchg operation, so it has neglible extra overhead
> compared to using a rwsem in the shared DIO fast path.

NFS and ocfs2 have been doing this for about two decades as well.

> This only leaves DIO coherency issues with mmap() based IO as an
> issue, but that's a problem for a different day...

I think it's a generally unsolveable problem that we can just whack
enough to make it good enough in practice for the few workloads that
matter.

> 
> > I don't really have time to turn this hand waving into, but maybe we 
> > should think if it's worthwhile or if I'm missing something important.
> 
> If people are OK with XFS moving to exclusive buffered or DIO
> submission model, then I can find some time to work on the
> converting the IO path locking to use a two-state shared lock in
> preparation for the batched folio stuff that will allow concurrent
> buffered writes...

This does sound fine to me, but it's hard to judge without seeing
a prototype and results based on it.


  reply	other threads:[~2025-01-16  4:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 50+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-12-26  6:16 [PATCH] xfs: Remove i_rwsem lock in buffered read Chi Zhiling
2024-12-26 21:50 ` Dave Chinner
2024-12-28  7:37   ` Chi Zhiling
2024-12-28 22:17     ` Dave Chinner
2024-12-30  2:42       ` Chi Zhiling
2025-01-07 12:13         ` Amir Goldstein
2025-01-07 17:12           ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-01-08  7:43           ` Chi Zhiling
2025-01-08 11:33             ` Amir Goldstein
2025-01-08 11:45               ` Amir Goldstein
2025-01-08 12:15               ` John Garry
2025-01-09 10:07                 ` Amir Goldstein
2025-01-09 12:40                   ` John Garry
2025-01-09  8:37               ` Chi Zhiling
2025-01-09 10:25                 ` Amir Goldstein
2025-01-09 12:10                   ` Chi Zhiling
2025-01-09 12:25                     ` John Garry
2025-01-08 17:35             ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-01-09 23:28               ` Dave Chinner
2025-01-10  1:31                 ` Chi Zhiling
2025-01-10 17:07                 ` Amir Goldstein
2025-01-12 10:05                   ` Chi Zhiling
2025-01-13  2:44                     ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-01-13  5:59                       ` Chi Zhiling
2025-01-13 13:40                       ` Brian Foster
2025-01-13 16:19                         ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-01-15  5:55                         ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-01-15 21:41                           ` Dave Chinner
2025-01-16  4:36                             ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2025-01-17 22:20                               ` Dave Chinner
2025-01-16 14:23                             ` Brian Foster
2025-01-17 13:27                             ` Amir Goldstein
2025-01-17 22:19                               ` Dave Chinner
2025-01-18 13:03                                 ` Amir Goldstein
2025-01-20  5:11                                   ` Dave Chinner
2025-01-22  6:08                                 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-01-22 23:35                                   ` Dave Chinner
2025-01-17 16:12                             ` Chi Zhiling
2025-01-24  7:57                             ` Chi Zhiling
2025-01-27 20:49                               ` Dave Chinner
2025-01-28  5:15                                 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-01-28 21:23                                   ` David Laight
2025-01-29  0:59                                   ` Dave Chinner
2025-01-29  5:20                                     ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-02-10  1:44                                 ` Chi Zhiling
2025-01-14  0:09                   ` Dave Chinner
2025-01-25  8:43           ` Jinliang Zheng
2025-01-25 14:14             ` Amir Goldstein
2025-06-20 14:03   ` Jinliang Zheng
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2019-03-25  0:10 [QUESTION] Long read latencies on mixed rw buffered IO Dave Chinner
2025-06-20 13:46 ` [PATCH] xfs: Remove i_rwsem lock in buffered read Jinliang Zheng

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=Z4iM4IJj53g-mbGV@infradead.org \
    --to=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
    --cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
    --cc=cem@kernel.org \
    --cc=chizhiling@163.com \
    --cc=chizhiling@kylinos.cn \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).