linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Cc: dm-devel@lists.linux.dev, Alasdair Kergon <agk@redhat.com>,
	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@kernel.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>,
	Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	Sami Tolvanen <samitolvanen@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] dm verity: don't use WQ_MEM_RECLAIM
Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2024 15:35:55 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240905223555.GA1512@sol.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <086a76c4-98da-d9d1-9f2f-6249c3d55fe9@redhat.com>

On Thu, Sep 05, 2024 at 08:21:46PM +0200, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, 3 Sep 2024, Eric Biggers wrote:
> 
> > From: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
> > 
> > Since dm-verity doesn't support writes, the kernel's memory reclaim code
> > will never wait on dm-verity work.  That makes the use of WQ_MEM_RECLAIM
> > in dm-verity unnecessary.  WQ_MEM_RECLAIM has been present from the
> > beginning of dm-verity, but I could not find a justification for it;
> > I suspect it was just copied from dm-crypt which does support writes.
> > 
> > Therefore, remove WQ_MEM_RECLAIM from dm-verity.  This eliminates the
> > creation of an unnecessary rescuer thread per dm-verity device.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@google.com>
> 
> Hmm. I can think about a case where you have read-only dm-verity device, 
> on the top of that you have dm-snapshot device and on the top of that you 
> have a writable filesystem.
> 
> When the filesystem needs to write data, it submits some write bios. When 
> dm-snapshot receives these write bios, it will read from the dm-verity 
> device and write to the snapshot's exception store device. So, dm-verity 
> needs WQ_MEM_RECLAIM in this case.
> 
> Mikulas
> 

Yes, unfortunately that sounds correct.

This means that any workqueue involved in fulfilling block device I/O,
regardless of whether that I/O is read or write, has to use WQ_MEM_RECLAIM.

I wonder if there's any way to safely share the rescuer threads.

- Eric


  reply	other threads:[~2024-09-05 22:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-09-04  4:04 Eric Biggers
2024-09-05 14:32 ` Mike Snitzer
2024-09-05 18:21 ` [PATCH] " Mikulas Patocka
2024-09-05 22:35   ` Eric Biggers [this message]
2024-09-05 23:35     ` sharing rescuer threads when WQ_MEM_RECLAIM needed? [was: Re: dm verity: don't use WQ_MEM_RECLAIM] Mike Snitzer
2024-09-06  1:34       ` Tejun Heo
2024-09-06 11:23         ` Mikulas Patocka
2024-09-06 10:59     ` [PATCH] dm verity: don't use WQ_MEM_RECLAIM Mikulas Patocka

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=20240905223555.GA1512@sol.localdomain \
    --to=ebiggers@kernel.org \
    --cc=agk@redhat.com \
    --cc=dm-devel@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=jiangshanlai@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mpatocka@redhat.com \
    --cc=samitolvanen@google.com \
    --cc=snitzer@kernel.org \
    --cc=tj@kernel.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