From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@vger.kernel.org" <linux-block@vger.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm: don't cap request size based on read-ahead setting
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2016 13:02:18 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161118180218.GA6411@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <e4271a04-35cf-b082-34ea-92649f5111be@kernel.dk>
On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 02:23:10PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote:
> We ran into a funky issue, where someone doing 256K buffered reads saw
> 128K requests at the device level. Turns out it is read-ahead capping
> the request size, since we use 128K as the default setting. This doesn't
> make a lot of sense - if someone is issuing 256K reads, they should see
> 256K reads, regardless of the read-ahead setting, if the underlying
> device can support a 256K read in a single command.
>
> To make matters more confusing, there's an odd interaction with the
> fadvise hint setting. If we tell the kernel we're doing sequential IO on
> this file descriptor, we can get twice the read-ahead size. But if we
> tell the kernel that we are doing random IO, hence disabling read-ahead,
> we do get nice 256K requests at the lower level. This is because
> ondemand and forced read-ahead behave differently, with the latter doing
> the right thing. An application developer will be, rightfully,
> scratching his head at this point, wondering wtf is going on. A good one
> will dive into the kernel source, and silently weep.
With the FADV_RANDOM part of the changelog updated, this looks good to
me. Just a few nitpicks below.
> This patch introduces a bdi hint, io_pages. This is the soft max IO size
> for the lower level, I've hooked it up to the bdev settings here.
> Read-ahead is modified to issue the maximum of the user request size,
> and the read-ahead max size, but capped to the max request size on the
> device side. The latter is done to avoid reading ahead too much, if the
> application asks for a huge read. With this patch, the kernel behaves
> like the application expects.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@fb.com>
> @@ -207,12 +207,17 @@ int __do_page_cache_readahead(struct address_space
> *mapping, struct file *filp,
> * memory at once.
> */
> int force_page_cache_readahead(struct address_space *mapping, struct file
> *filp,
Linewrap (but you already knew that ;))
> - pgoff_t offset, unsigned long nr_to_read)
> + pgoff_t offset, unsigned long nr_to_read)
> {
> + struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode_to_bdi(mapping->host);
> + struct file_ra_state *ra = &filp->f_ra;
> + unsigned long max_pages;
> +
> if (unlikely(!mapping->a_ops->readpage && !mapping->a_ops->readpages))
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - nr_to_read = min(nr_to_read, inode_to_bdi(mapping->host)->ra_pages);
> + max_pages = max_t(unsigned long, bdi->io_pages, ra->ra_pages);
> + nr_to_read = min(nr_to_read, max_pages);
It would be useful to have the comment on not capping below optimal IO
size from ondemand_readahead() here as well.
> @@ -369,10 +374,18 @@ ondemand_readahead(struct address_space *mapping,
> bool hit_readahead_marker, pgoff_t offset,
> unsigned long req_size)
> {
> - unsigned long max = ra->ra_pages;
> + struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode_to_bdi(mapping->host);
> + unsigned long max_pages = ra->ra_pages;
> pgoff_t prev_offset;
>
> /*
> + * If the request exceeds the readahead window, allow the read to
> + * be up to the optimal hardware IO size
> + */
> + if (req_size > max_pages && bdi->io_pages > max_pages)
> + max_pages = min(req_size, bdi->io_pages);
> +
> + /*
> * start of file
> */
> if (!offset)
Please feel free to add:
Acked-by: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-18 18:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-17 21:23 Jens Axboe
2016-11-18 5:58 ` Hillf Danton
2016-11-18 15:09 ` Jens Axboe
2016-11-18 18:02 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
2016-11-18 19:34 ` Jens Axboe
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=20161118180218.GA6411@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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