Re: [RFC] Storing cgroup id in page->private (Was: Re: [RFC] [PATCH 0/6] Provide cgroup isolation for buffered writes.)

Vivek Goyal
2011-03-11T02:15:58Z

On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 12:46:18PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 04:43:31PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > Excerpts from Vivek Goyal's message of 2011-03-10 16:38:32 -0500:
> > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 02:24:07PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > > > On 2011-03-10, at 2:15 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> > > > > Excerpts from Vivek Goyal's message of 2011-03-10 14:41:06 -0500:
> > > > >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2011 at 02:11:15PM -0500, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > > >>>>> I think the person who dirtied the page can store the information in
> > > > >>>>> page->private (assuming buffer heads were not generated) and if flusher
> > > > >>>>> thread later ends up generating buffer heads and ends up modifying
> > > > >>>>> page->private, this can be copied in buffer heads?
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> This scares me a bit.
> > > > >>>>
> > > > >>>> As I understand it, fs/ code expects total ownership of page->private.
> > > > >>>> This adds a responsibility for every user to copy the data through and
> > > > >>>> store it in the buffer head (or anything else). btrfs seems to do
> > > > >>>> something entirely different in some cases and store a different kind
> > > > >>>> of value.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> If filesystems are using page->private for some other purpose also, then
> > > > >>> I guess we have issues.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I am ccing linux-fsdevel to have some feedback on the idea of trying
> > > > >>> to store cgroup id of page dirtying thread in page->private and/or buffer
> > > > >>> head for tracking which group originally dirtied the page in IO controller
> > > > >>> during writeback.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> A quick "grep" showed that btrfs, ceph and logfs are using page->private
> > > > >> for other purposes also.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I was under the impression that either page->private is null or it
> > > > >> points to buffer heads for the writeback case. So storing the info
> > > > >> directly in either buffer head directly or first in page->private and
> > > > >> then transferring it to buffer heads would have helped.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right, btrfs has its own uses for page->private, and we expect to own
> > > > > it. With a proper callback, the FS could store the extra information you
> > > > > need in out own structs.
> > > >
> > > > There is no requirement that page->private ever points to a
> > > > buffer_head, and Lustre clients use it for its own tracking
> > > > structure (never touching buffer_heads at all). Any
> > > > assumption about what a filesystem is storing in page->private
> > > > in other parts of the code is just broken.
> > >
> > > Andreas,
> > >
> > > As Chris mentioned, will providing callbacks so that filesystem
> > > can save/restore page->private be reasonable?
> >
> > Just to clarify, I think saving/restoring page->private is going
> > to be hard. I'd rather just have a call back that says here's a
> > page, storage this for the block io controller please, and another
> > one that returns any previously stored info.
>
> Agreed - there is absolutely no guarantee that some other thread
> doesn't grab the page while it is under writeback and dereference
> page->private expecting there to be buffer heads or some filesystem
> specific structure to be there. Hence swapping out the expected
> structure with something different is problematic.
>
> However, I think there's bigger issues. e.g. page->private might
> point to multiple bufferheads that map to non-contiguous disk blocks
> that were written by different threads - what happens if we get two
> concurrent IOs to the one page, perhaps with different cgroup IDs?

I guess in such cases we can afford to lose some accuracy and a
simple approximation can be the last writer's cgroup id is used
for whole page.

>
> Further, page->private might not even point to a per-page specific
> structure - it might point to a structure shared by multiple pages
> (e.g. an extent map). Adding a callback like this requires
> filesystems to be able to store per-page or per-block information
> for external users. Indeed, one of the areas of development in XFS
> right now is to move away from storing internal per-block/per-page
> information because of the memory overhead it causes.

Ok, if filesystem is trying to move away from per page information then
these kind of callbacks become a burden.

>
> IMO, if you really need some per-page information, then just put it
> in the struct page - you can't hide the memory overhead just by
> having the filesystem to store it for you. That just adds
> unnecessary complexity...

Ok. I guess adding anything to struct page is going to be hard and
we might have to fall back to looking into using page_cgroup for
tracking page state. I was trying to explore the ways so that we don't
have to instantiate whole page_cgroup structure just for trying
to figure out who dirtied the page.

Thanks
Vivek