Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/3] xfs: use large folios for buffers

Darrick J. Wong
2024-01-19T01:05:36Z

On Fri, Jan 19, 2024 at 09:19:38AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> The XFS buffer cache supports metadata buffers up to 64kB, and it does so by
> aggregating multiple pages into a single contiguous memory region using
> vmapping. This is expensive (both the setup and the runtime TLB mapping cost),
> and would be unnecessary if we could allocate large contiguous memory regions
> for the buffers in the first place.
>
> Enter multi-page folios.

LOL, hch and I just wrapped up making the xfbtree buffer cache work with
large folios coming from tmpfs. Though the use case there is simpler
because we require blocksize==PAGE_SIZE, forbid the use of highmem, and
don't need discontig buffers. Hence we sidestep vm_map_ram. :)

> This patchset converts the buffer cache to use the folio API, then enhances it
> to optimisitically use large folios where possible. It retains the old "vmap an
> array of single page folios" functionality as a fallback when large folio
> allocation fails. This means that, like page cache support for large folios, we
> aren't dependent on large folio allocation succeeding all the time.
>
> This relegates the single page array allocation mechanism to the "slow path"
> that we don't have to care so much about performance of this path anymore. This
> might allow us to simplify it a bit in future.
>
> One of the issues with the folio conversion is that we use a couple of APIs that
> take struct page ** (i.e. pointers to page pointer arrays) and there aren't
> folio counterparts. These are the bulk page allocator and vm_map_ram(). In the
> cases where they are used, we cast &bp->b_folios[] to (struct page **) knowing
> that this array will only contain single page folios and that single page folios
> and struct page are the same structure and so have the same address. This is a
> bit of a hack (hence the RFC) but I'm not sure that it's worth adding folio
> versions of these interfaces right now. We don't need to use the bulk page
> allocator so much any more, because that's now a slow path and we could probably
> just call folio_alloc() in a loop like we used to. What to do about vm_map_ram()
> is a little less clear....

Yeah, that's what I suspected.

> The other issue I tripped over in doing this conversion is that the
> discontiguous buffer straddling code in the buf log item dirty region tracking
> is broken. We don't actually exercise that code on existing configurations, and
> I tripped over it when tracking down a bug in the folio conversion. I fixed it
> and short-circuted the check for contiguous buffers, but that didn't fix the
> failure I was seeing (which was not handling bp->b_offset and large folios
> properly when building bios).

Yikes.

> Apart from those issues, the conversion and enhancement is relatively straight
> forward. It passes fstests on both 512 and 4096 byte sector size storage (512
> byte sectors exercise the XBF_KMEM path which has non-zero bp->b_offset values)
> and doesn't appear to cause any problems with large directory buffers, though I
> haven't done any real testing on those yet. Large folio allocations are
> definitely being exercised, though, as all the inode cluster buffers are 16kB on
> a 512 byte inode V5 filesystem.
>
> Thoughts, comments, etc?

Not yet.

> Note: this patchset is on top of the NOFS removal patchset I sent a
> few days ago. That can be pulled from this git branch:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dgc/linux-xfs.git xfs-kmem-cleanup

Oooh a branch link, thank you. It's so much easier if I can pull a
branch while picking through commits over gitweb.

--D

>
>