From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
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 12:34:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2f00c6b4-cef7-3cbc-842f-be8aa614dd21@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161118180218.GA6411@cmpxchg.org>
On 11/18/2016 11:02 AM, Johannes Weiner wrote:
> 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 ;))
Yeah, dunno wtf happened there...
>> - 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.
Good idea, I'll copy/paste the comment from the ondemand part.
>> @@ -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>
Thanks!
--
Jens Axboe
--
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>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-18 19:34 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
2016-11-18 19:34 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
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=2f00c6b4-cef7-3cbc-842f-be8aa614dd21@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--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