From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
hannes@cmpxchg.org, clm@meta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
willy@infradead.org, kirill@shutemov.name, bfoster@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHSET v8 0/12] Uncached buffered IO
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2025 17:56:40 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <010513c8-7c17-454f-b6e0-d03fe7795eb2@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250113164650.5dfbc4f77c4b294bb004804c@linux-foundation.org>
On 1/13/25 5:46 PM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 08:34:18 -0700 Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
>
>>>
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> Of course, we're doing something here which userspace could itself do:
>>> drop the pagecache after reading it (with appropriate chunk sizing) and
>>> for writes, sync the written area then invalidate it. Possible
>>> added benefits from using separate threads for this.
>>>
>>> I suggest that diligence requires that we at least justify an in-kernel
>>> approach at this time, please.
>>
>> Conceptually yes. But you'd end up doing extra work to do it. Some of
>> that not so expensive, like system calls, and others more so, like LRU
>> manipulation. Outside of that, I do think it makes sense to expose as a
>> generic thing, rather than require applications needing to kick
>> writeback manually, reclaim manually, etc.
>>
>>> And there's a possible middle-ground implementation where the kernel
>>> itself kicks off threads to do the drop-behind just before the read or
>>> write syscall returns, which will probably be simpler. Can we please
>>> describe why this also isn't acceptable?
>>
>> That's more of an implementation detail. I didn't test anything like
>> that, though we surely could. If it's better, there's no reason why it
>> can't just be changed to do that. My gut tells me you want the task/CPU
>> that just did the page cache additions to do the pruning to, that should
>> be more efficient than having a kworker or similar do it.
>
> Well, gut might be wrong ;)
A gut this big is rarely wrong ;-)
> There may be benefit in using different CPUs to perform the dropbehind,
> rather than making the read() caller do this synchronously.
>
> If I understand correctly, the write() dropbehind is performed at
> interrupt (write completion) time so that's already async.
It does, but we could actually get rid of that, at least when called via
io_uring. From the testing I've done, doing it inline it definitely
superior. Though it will depend on if you care about overall efficiency
or just sheer speed/overhead of the read/write itself.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-14 0:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-12-20 15:47 Jens Axboe
2024-12-20 15:47 ` [PATCH 01/12] mm/filemap: change filemap_create_folio() to take a struct kiocb Jens Axboe
2024-12-20 16:11 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-12-20 15:47 ` [PATCH 02/12] mm/filemap: use page_cache_sync_ra() to kick off read-ahead Jens Axboe
2024-12-20 16:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-12-20 15:47 ` [PATCH 03/12] mm/readahead: add folio allocation helper Jens Axboe
2024-12-20 16:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-12-20 15:47 ` [PATCH 04/12] mm: add PG_dropbehind folio flag Jens Axboe
2024-12-20 15:47 ` [PATCH 05/12] mm/readahead: add readahead_control->dropbehind member Jens Axboe
2024-12-20 15:47 ` [PATCH 06/12] mm/truncate: add folio_unmap_invalidate() helper Jens Axboe
2024-12-20 16:21 ` Matthew Wilcox
2024-12-20 16:28 ` Jens Axboe
2025-01-02 20:12 ` Jens Axboe
2024-12-20 15:47 ` [PATCH 07/12] fs: add RWF_DONTCACHE iocb and FOP_DONTCACHE file_operations flag Jens Axboe
2025-01-04 8:39 ` (subset) " Christian Brauner
2025-01-06 15:44 ` Jens Axboe
2024-12-20 15:47 ` [PATCH 08/12] mm/filemap: add read support for RWF_DONTCACHE Jens Axboe
2024-12-20 15:47 ` [PATCH 09/12] mm/filemap: drop streaming/uncached pages when writeback completes Jens Axboe
2025-01-18 3:29 ` Jingbo Xu
2025-03-04 3:12 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-12-20 15:47 ` [PATCH 10/12] mm/filemap: add filemap_fdatawrite_range_kick() helper Jens Axboe
2025-01-18 3:25 ` Jingbo Xu
2024-12-20 15:47 ` [PATCH 11/12] mm: call filemap_fdatawrite_range_kick() after IOCB_DONTCACHE issue Jens Axboe
2024-12-20 15:47 ` [PATCH 12/12] mm: add FGP_DONTCACHE folio creation flag Jens Axboe
2025-01-08 3:35 ` [PATCHSET v8 0/12] Uncached buffered IO Andrew Morton
2025-01-13 15:34 ` Jens Axboe
2025-01-14 0:46 ` Andrew Morton
2025-01-14 0:56 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2025-01-16 10:06 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
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=010513c8-7c17-454f-b6e0-d03fe7795eb2@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=clm@meta.com \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.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