From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA5F0D42BB3 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:13:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 5B4856B00CA; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 12:13:18 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 5647B6B00CC; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 12:13:18 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 4053D6B00F5; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 12:13:18 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0015.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.15]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22BED6B00CA for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 12:13:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin25.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C32B88049E for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:13:17 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 82778087238.25.D77397D Received: from mail-oi1-f169.google.com (mail-oi1-f169.google.com [209.85.167.169]) by imf20.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A13341C000A for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:12:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf20.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.s=20230601 header.b=QYivqGcg; spf=pass (imf20.hostedemail.com: domain of axboe@kernel.dk designates 209.85.167.169 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=axboe@kernel.dk; dmarc=none ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1731431453; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=hhFc34QUIUtRmxEJib4/H+5a4T4gZgtNawOMUenBu5s=; b=F9bTP8gTf0xB6tegZHYXLxPahquzs3f6NSyeZOAEwSCb0i59IVdWqX21fD+QAUyGifEqFj LYq+EpLXnxN0Hdg7ZFhMRUF/heY+isU5atiD1sdmv28CqR0j3K1IVkifA3KVy6jSQXkxg/ CZakrrhbeJ5ofzH/wJiJ2gsrPit1Ero= ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1731431453; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=JpidLVQNyx6cD/I0bAzQ3q5Zg8lJXSK6Q8+v/4lgkjkyUUojgPhU1PBby1Y74qVGnqkI1m q0VpNgaThXCqBehGyIVti7GiwI39B2jYDdyqefHTwg2RYuqsRC2FOb/X+9qOGrXVIT6RLz asl5NyuzrvaRmnWTGtYFu2TQSXqdf0Q= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf20.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com header.s=20230601 header.b=QYivqGcg; spf=pass (imf20.hostedemail.com: domain of axboe@kernel.dk designates 209.85.167.169 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=axboe@kernel.dk; dmarc=none Received: by mail-oi1-f169.google.com with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3e601b6a33aso3468846b6e.0 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 09:13:15 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel-dk.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1731431595; x=1732036395; darn=kvack.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=hhFc34QUIUtRmxEJib4/H+5a4T4gZgtNawOMUenBu5s=; b=QYivqGcgqjScaf9WIwoSfizgNPKirNMx7kp7H/W0XM0R2n6Xc6H9S7VesgxG4T8xBn BG8cvEUW9eaPYNWr0U6KdLRW4tUeJGMRf/Vveoai21ZDt6hoENwHC/GuD175q4dcVIDL C/bU/p3S2m7sIx1rMzT6VBw+U+Bv7fqWoTNiHp6AUQeTYOzycOk1V6vKnIhZr37u1Crk DDG5BD/6daQb9B52oAYGnk5feExUEE1rg2GreevNoAYYgXoR9AtJjJXEH9xwWvS35VTP g71wO5gM03ALmY62kaoHOY58IMGGx0P9D46AUg6rkwUvDjujRwUgA+cOfaTjOn6vF6LE 7XlA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1731431595; x=1732036395; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language :references:cc:to:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=hhFc34QUIUtRmxEJib4/H+5a4T4gZgtNawOMUenBu5s=; b=Rb++tbPWqvEFewbBGj0bEHdMQAVDIBiMuTbf+KS7cThBBKG/XxPWZu5HrYkxtdWTwD 8b+PwrQ3qY72JTxu0BpOdHzB2FgoFHNjGcgquGkoVVBzulqHyPxB6Z8eOs3lYlve7e7/ X+Rgurv/MtDj4nHjV3aVsN/1FAMfoiT24FHRMZXs9wD3bnWVf/HKvxpmdWKYUxa7OAkR Iztf9RW3nCm1tzzk7vd90oQ9EPGVgDJkCjAERGfCPHKbj1ECADMh+BYX89qFkLLloFnr 5lz/Ybq6riPGk8/MPlnuqnElNmdX7xSta9ucrGv68Qti3zHkBEXiOXLWfTrak9ErB8yF W4sA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwEpffF8SP61mZpcYKjd0N6L9xXZRXCnzCdJCNMAqjLoP/T76kH yrETspuBdw9yEY0ZwZT7vkDYGxvSzkIDfT2sYMtI8Y9lPJw062ItEPuyXAourRE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IH644V99dOVg147q96OR3GJtIRC7XpOTmFUI9LGtr4TxaaFP6x3xC1BuVau04Ao7iJOTmXH6w== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:10c9:b0:3e6:60dc:5aee with SMTP id 5614622812f47-3e794654540mr13513708b6e.3.1731431594747; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 09:13:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.116] ([96.43.243.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 5614622812f47-3e78cca37c9sm2630818b6e.21.2024.11.12.09.13.13 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 12 Nov 2024 09:13:14 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 10:13:12 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/16] ext4: add RWF_UNCACHED write support To: Brian Foster 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, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org References: <20241111234842.2024180-1-axboe@kernel.dk> <20241111234842.2024180-13-axboe@kernel.dk> Content-Language: en-US From: Jens Axboe In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam12 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: A13341C000A X-Stat-Signature: 7k5u4fsyyuuchq6ohq14xcykh4om95ih X-HE-Tag: 1731431543-392731 X-HE-Meta: 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 sgM567Li jX0/srKich5MO7qAm9r9W98/8bGzj31rL+NCCAx/LETxVwX+QfxVGch2n0eGuzzbyIL60qPWHP4QiSG+1ivcpOQaxiOoYbJ6Z/ChhQ9LYqv6AuEmOMxdknjlQkkGLATYz2IH4c369yGfX1SIDA+SF+9f/rnOKSVCkrXFR8j+HEryRiMZzWr5GOAI0cK7yVvFMEfKE9HZoix+3+mv/lQzrlgtTlBewgMFYOCBKuY7cfVzjjhz/qTknOS/KnXPPYwwGupKQr2GPyZzOTLGmWgRzmTv+61MQE9un9q4OsjSXLOsGf6l+24rRujnAvaY9jDU6+KMr09PAa8NMDlbi5CHzGPDObB2GUbsV3/Jv/26EYXaUPLaBLwQKMqU9UcwMYWC9Wbj7pnK88ZTQL4GKZ9ao3iZnUA== X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On 11/12/24 9:36 AM, Brian Foster wrote: > On Mon, Nov 11, 2024 at 04:37:39PM -0700, Jens Axboe wrote: >> IOCB_UNCACHED IO needs to prune writeback regions on IO completion, >> and hence need the worker punt that ext4 also does for unwritten >> extents. Add an io_end flag to manage that. >> >> If foliop is set to foliop_uncached in ext4_write_begin(), then set >> FGP_UNCACHED so that __filemap_get_folio() will mark newly created >> folios as uncached. That in turn will make writeback completion drop >> these ranges from the page cache. >> >> Now that ext4 supports both uncached reads and writes, add the fop_flag >> FOP_UNCACHED to enable it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe >> --- >> fs/ext4/ext4.h | 1 + >> fs/ext4/file.c | 2 +- >> fs/ext4/inline.c | 7 ++++++- >> fs/ext4/inode.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- >> fs/ext4/page-io.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++------------ >> 5 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >> > ... >> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c >> index 54bdd4884fe6..afae3ab64c9e 100644 >> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c >> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c >> @@ -1138,6 +1138,7 @@ static int ext4_write_begin(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping, >> int ret, needed_blocks; >> handle_t *handle; >> int retries = 0; >> + fgf_t fgp_flags; >> struct folio *folio; >> pgoff_t index; >> unsigned from, to; >> @@ -1164,6 +1165,15 @@ static int ext4_write_begin(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping, >> return 0; >> } >> >> + /* >> + * Set FGP_WRITEBEGIN, and FGP_UNCACHED if foliop contains >> + * foliop_uncached. That's how generic_perform_write() informs us >> + * that this is an uncached write. >> + */ >> + fgp_flags = FGP_WRITEBEGIN; >> + if (*foliop == foliop_uncached) >> + fgp_flags |= FGP_UNCACHED; >> + >> /* >> * __filemap_get_folio() can take a long time if the >> * system is thrashing due to memory pressure, or if the folio >> @@ -1172,7 +1182,7 @@ static int ext4_write_begin(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping, >> * the folio (if needed) without using GFP_NOFS. >> */ >> retry_grab: >> - folio = __filemap_get_folio(mapping, index, FGP_WRITEBEGIN, >> + folio = __filemap_get_folio(mapping, index, fgp_flags, >> mapping_gfp_mask(mapping)); >> if (IS_ERR(folio)) >> return PTR_ERR(folio); > > JFYI, I notice that ext4 cycles the folio lock here in this path and > thus follows up with a couple checks presumably to accommodate that. One > is whether i_mapping has changed, which I assume means uncached state > would have been handled/cleared externally somewhere..? I.e., if an > uncached folio is somehow truncated/freed without ever having been > written back? > > The next is a folio_wait_stable() call "in case writeback began ..." > It's not immediately clear to me if that is possible here, but taking > that at face value, is it an issue if we were to create an uncached > folio, drop the folio lock, then have some other task dirty and > writeback the folio (due to a sync write or something), then have > writeback completion invalidate the folio before we relock it here? I don't either of those are an issue. The UNCACHED flag will only be set on a newly created folio, it does not get inherited for folios that already exist. -- Jens Axboe