From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
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: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 19:35:32 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250107193532.f8518eb71a469b023b6a9220@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241220154831.1086649-1-axboe@kernel.dk>
On Fri, 20 Dec 2024 08:47:38 -0700 Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:
> So here's a new approach to the same concent, but using the page cache
> as synchronization. Due to excessive bike shedding on the naming, this
> is now named RWF_DONTCACHE, and is less special in that it's just page
> cache IO, except it prunes the ranges once IO is completed.
>
> Why do this, you may ask? The tldr is that device speeds are only
> getting faster, while reclaim is not. Doing normal buffered IO can be
> very unpredictable, and suck up a lot of resources on the reclaim side.
> This leads people to use O_DIRECT as a work-around, which has its own
> set of restrictions in terms of size, offset, and length of IO. It's
> also inherently synchronous, and now you need async IO as well. While
> the latter isn't necessarily a big problem as we have good options
> available there, it also should not be a requirement when all you want
> to do is read or write some data without caching.
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.
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?
Also, it seems wrong for a read(RWF_DONTCACHE) to drop cache if it was
already present. Because it was presumably present for a reason. Does
this implementation already take care of this? To make an application
which does read(/etc/passwd, RWF_DONTCACHE) less annoying?
Also, consuming a new page flag isn't a minor thing. It would be nice
to see some justification around this, and some decription of how many
we have left.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-01-08 3:35 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 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2025-01-13 15:34 ` [PATCHSET v8 0/12] Uncached buffered IO Jens Axboe
2025-01-14 0:46 ` Andrew Morton
2025-01-14 0:56 ` Jens Axboe
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=20250107193532.f8518eb71a469b023b6a9220@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--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