Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] fs/buffer.c: allocate buffer cache with user specific flag

Jan Kara
2014-08-20T02:16:32Z

On Wed 20-08-14 08:37:07, Gioh Kim wrote:
>
>
> 2014-08-19 오후 10:03, Jan Kara 쓴 글:
> > Hello,
> >
> >On Tue 19-08-14 15:52:38, Gioh Kim wrote:
> >>A buffer cache is allocated from movable area
> >>because it is referred for a while and released soon.
> >>But some filesystems are taking buffer cache for a long time
> >>and it can disturb page migration.
> >>
> >>A new API should be introduced to allocate buffer cache
> >>with user specific flag.
> >>For instance if user set flag to zero, buffer cache is allocated from
> >>non-movable area.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Gioh Kim <gioh.kim@lge.com>
> >>---
> >> fs/buffer.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> >> include/linux/buffer_head.h | 12 +++++++++-
> >> 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c
> >>index 8f05111..14f2f21 100644
> >>--- a/fs/buffer.c
> >>+++ b/fs/buffer.c
> >>@@ -993,7 +993,7 @@ init_page_buffers(struct page *page, struct block_device *bdev,
> >> */
> >> static int
> >> grow_dev_page(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block,
> >>- pgoff_t index, int size, int sizebits)
> >>+ pgoff_t index, int size, int sizebits, gfp_t gfp)
> >> {
> >> struct inode *inode = bdev->bd_inode;
> >> struct page *page;
> >>@@ -1002,10 +1002,10 @@ grow_dev_page(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block,
> >> int ret = 0; /* Will call free_more_memory() */
> >> gfp_t gfp_mask;
> >>
> >>- gfp_mask = mapping_gfp_mask(inode->i_mapping) & ~__GFP_FS;
> >>- gfp_mask |= __GFP_MOVABLE;
> >>+ gfp_mask = (mapping_gfp_mask(inode->i_mapping) & ~__GFP_FS) | gfp;
> >>+
> > Hum, it seems a bit misleading that the 'gfp' flags are just or-ed to
> >mapping_gfp_mask(inode->i_mapping). Usually, passed gfp mask is just
> >directly used. There are also interfaces like pagecache_get_page() which
> >play more complex tricks with mapping_gfp_mask(). This would be yet another
> >convention which I don't think is desirable. I know Andrew suggested what
> >you wrote so I guess I have to settle this with him. Andrew?
>
> I don't know mapping_gfp_mask(). I just add gfp at the original code.
> Whould you tell me why it is undesirable?
Well, it's not that mapping_gfp_mask() would be undesirable. It's that
the interface where you pass in gfp mask but it gets silently combined with
another gfp mask seems a bit error prone to me. So would prefer
grow_dev_page() to just use the gfp mask passed and then do something like:

struct buffer_head *getblk_unmovable(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block,
unsigned size)
{
return __getblk_gfp(bdev, block, size,
mapping_gfp_mask(bdev->bd_inode->i_mapping));
}

And similarly in getblk() and other places. But before you go and do this,
I'd like Andrew to say what he thinks about it because maybe he had a good
reason why he wanted it the way you've implemented it.

> >>@@ -1381,12 +1383,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__find_get_block);
> >> struct buffer_head *
> >> __getblk(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, unsigned size)
> >> {
> >>- struct buffer_head *bh = __find_get_block(bdev, block, size);
> >>-
> >>- might_sleep();
> >>- if (bh == NULL)
> >>- bh = __getblk_slow(bdev, block, size);
> >>- return bh;
> >>+ return __getblk_gfp(bdev, block, size, __GFP_MOVABLE);
> >> }
> >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__getblk);
> > Why did you remove the __find_get_block() call? That looks like a bug.
I'm not sure if you didn't miss this comment....

> I think the common interface is important.
>
> If sb_getblk_unmovable() is obvious for the filesystem,
> I will add some codes for getblk_unmovable() which calling __getblk_gfp(),
> and sb_bread_unmovable() calling __bread_gfp().
> If so, sb_bread_gfp is not necessary.
>
> It might be like followings:
>
> diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c
> index 14f2f21..35caf77 100644
> --- a/fs/buffer.c
> +++ b/fs/buffer.c
> @@ -1088,7 +1088,7 @@ grow_buffers(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, int siz
> return grow_dev_page(bdev, block, index, size, sizebits, gfp);
> }
>
> -struct buffer_head *
> +static struct buffer_head *
> __getblk_gfp(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block,
> unsigned size, gfp_t gfp)
> {
> @@ -1119,7 +1119,13 @@ __getblk_gfp(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block,
> free_more_memory();
> }
> }
> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(__getblk_gfp);
> +
> +struct buffer_head *getblk_unmovable(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block,
> + unsigned size)
> +{
> + return __getblk_gfp(bdev, block, size, 0);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(getblk_unmovable);
>
> /*
> * The relationship between dirty buffers and dirty pages:
> diff --git a/include/linux/buffer_head.h b/include/linux/buffer_head.h
> index a1d73fd..c5fb4fc 100644
> --- a/include/linux/buffer_head.h
> +++ b/include/linux/buffer_head.h
> @@ -177,8 +177,8 @@ struct buffer_head *__find_get_block(struct block_device *bdev, s
> unsigned size);
> struct buffer_head *__getblk(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block,
> unsigned size);
> -struct buffer_head *__getblk_gfp(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block,
> - unsigned size, gfp_t gfp);
> +struct buffer_head *getblk_unmovable(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block,
> + unsigned size);
> void __brelse(struct buffer_head *);
> void __bforget(struct buffer_head *);
> void __breadahead(struct block_device *, sector_t block, unsigned int size);
> @@ -303,9 +303,9 @@ sb_bread(struct super_block *sb, sector_t block)
> }
>
> static inline struct buffer_head *
> -sb_bread_gfp(struct super_block *sb, sector_t block, gfp_t gfp)
> +sb_bread_unmovable(struct super_block *sb, sector_t block)
> {
> - return __bread_gfp(sb->s_bdev, block, sb->s_blocksize, gfp);
> + return __bread_gfp(sb->s_bdev, block, sb->s_blocksize, 0);
> }
>
> Is it better?
Yes, this is what I meant.

Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR