linux/fs/netfs/write_collect.c

725 lines
21 KiB
C
Raw Permalink Normal View History

netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
/* Network filesystem write subrequest result collection, assessment
* and retrying.
*
* Copyright (C) 2024 Red Hat, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
* Written by David Howells (dhowells@redhat.com)
*/
#include <linux/export.h>
#include <linux/fs.h>
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/pagemap.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include "internal.h"
/* Notes made in the collector */
#define HIT_PENDING 0x01 /* A front op was still pending */
#define NEED_REASSESS 0x02 /* Need to loop round and reassess */
#define MADE_PROGRESS 0x04 /* Made progress cleaning up a stream or the folio set */
#define BUFFERED 0x08 /* The pagecache needs cleaning up */
#define NEED_RETRY 0x10 /* A front op requests retrying */
#define SAW_FAILURE 0x20 /* One stream or hit a permanent failure */
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
/*
* Successful completion of write of a folio to the server and/or cache. Note
* that we are not allowed to lock the folio here on pain of deadlocking with
* truncate.
*/
int netfs_folio_written_back(struct folio *folio)
{
enum netfs_folio_trace why = netfs_folio_trace_clear;
struct netfs_inode *ictx = netfs_inode(folio->mapping->host);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
struct netfs_folio *finfo;
struct netfs_group *group = NULL;
int gcount = 0;
if ((finfo = netfs_folio_info(folio))) {
/* Streaming writes cannot be redirtied whilst under writeback,
* so discard the streaming record.
*/
unsigned long long fend;
fend = folio_pos(folio) + finfo->dirty_offset + finfo->dirty_len;
if (fend > ictx->zero_point)
ictx->zero_point = fend;
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
folio_detach_private(folio);
group = finfo->netfs_group;
gcount++;
kfree(finfo);
why = netfs_folio_trace_clear_s;
goto end_wb;
}
if ((group = netfs_folio_group(folio))) {
if (group == NETFS_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE) {
why = netfs_folio_trace_clear_cc;
folio_detach_private(folio);
goto end_wb;
}
/* Need to detach the group pointer if the page didn't get
* redirtied. If it has been redirtied, then it must be within
* the same group.
*/
why = netfs_folio_trace_redirtied;
if (!folio_test_dirty(folio)) {
folio_detach_private(folio);
gcount++;
why = netfs_folio_trace_clear_g;
}
}
end_wb:
trace_netfs_folio(folio, why);
folio_end_writeback(folio);
return gcount;
}
/*
* Unlock any folios we've finished with.
*/
static void netfs_writeback_unlock_folios(struct netfs_io_request *wreq,
unsigned int *notes)
{
struct folio_queue *folioq = wreq->buffer;
unsigned long long collected_to = wreq->collected_to;
unsigned int slot = wreq->buffer_head_slot;
if (wreq->origin == NETFS_PGPRIV2_COPY_TO_CACHE) {
if (netfs_pgpriv2_unlock_copied_folios(wreq))
*notes |= MADE_PROGRESS;
return;
}
if (slot >= folioq_nr_slots(folioq)) {
folioq = netfs_delete_buffer_head(wreq);
slot = 0;
}
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
for (;;) {
struct folio *folio;
struct netfs_folio *finfo;
unsigned long long fpos, fend;
size_t fsize, flen;
folio = folioq_folio(folioq, slot);
if (WARN_ONCE(!folio_test_writeback(folio),
"R=%08x: folio %lx is not under writeback\n",
wreq->debug_id, folio->index))
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_not_under_wback);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
fpos = folio_pos(folio);
fsize = folio_size(folio);
finfo = netfs_folio_info(folio);
flen = finfo ? finfo->dirty_offset + finfo->dirty_len : fsize;
fend = min_t(unsigned long long, fpos + flen, wreq->i_size);
trace_netfs_collect_folio(wreq, folio, fend, collected_to);
/* Unlock any folio we've transferred all of. */
if (collected_to < fend)
break;
wreq->nr_group_rel += netfs_folio_written_back(folio);
wreq->cleaned_to = fpos + fsize;
*notes |= MADE_PROGRESS;
/* Clean up the head folioq. If we clear an entire folioq, then
* we can get rid of it provided it's not also the tail folioq
* being filled by the issuer.
*/
folioq_clear(folioq, slot);
slot++;
if (slot >= folioq_nr_slots(folioq)) {
if (READ_ONCE(wreq->buffer_tail) == folioq)
break;
folioq = netfs_delete_buffer_head(wreq);
slot = 0;
}
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
if (fpos + fsize >= collected_to)
break;
}
wreq->buffer = folioq;
wreq->buffer_head_slot = slot;
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
}
/*
* Perform retries on the streams that need it.
*/
static void netfs_retry_write_stream(struct netfs_io_request *wreq,
struct netfs_io_stream *stream)
{
struct list_head *next;
_enter("R=%x[%x:]", wreq->debug_id, stream->stream_nr);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
if (list_empty(&stream->subrequests))
return;
if (stream->source == NETFS_UPLOAD_TO_SERVER &&
wreq->netfs_ops->retry_request)
wreq->netfs_ops->retry_request(wreq, stream);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
if (unlikely(stream->failed))
return;
/* If there's no renegotiation to do, just resend each failed subreq. */
if (!stream->prepare_write) {
struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq;
list_for_each_entry(subreq, &stream->subrequests, rreq_link) {
if (test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_FAILED, &subreq->flags))
break;
if (__test_and_clear_bit(NETFS_SREQ_NEED_RETRY, &subreq->flags)) {
struct iov_iter source = subreq->io_iter;
iov_iter_revert(&source, subreq->len - source.count);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
netfs_get_subrequest(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_get_resubmit);
netfs_reissue_write(stream, subreq, &source);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
}
}
return;
}
next = stream->subrequests.next;
do {
struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq = NULL, *from, *to, *tmp;
struct iov_iter source;
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
unsigned long long start, len;
size_t part;
bool boundary = false;
/* Go through the stream and find the next span of contiguous
* data that we then rejig (cifs, for example, needs the wsize
* renegotiating) and reissue.
*/
from = list_entry(next, struct netfs_io_subrequest, rreq_link);
to = from;
start = from->start + from->transferred;
len = from->len - from->transferred;
if (test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_FAILED, &from->flags) ||
!test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_NEED_RETRY, &from->flags))
return;
list_for_each_continue(next, &stream->subrequests) {
subreq = list_entry(next, struct netfs_io_subrequest, rreq_link);
if (subreq->start + subreq->transferred != start + len ||
test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_BOUNDARY, &subreq->flags) ||
!test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_NEED_RETRY, &subreq->flags))
break;
to = subreq;
len += to->len;
}
/* Determine the set of buffers we're going to use. Each
* subreq gets a subset of a single overall contiguous buffer.
*/
netfs_reset_iter(from);
source = from->io_iter;
source.count = len;
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
/* Work through the sublist. */
subreq = from;
list_for_each_entry_from(subreq, &stream->subrequests, rreq_link) {
if (!len)
break;
/* Renegotiate max_len (wsize) */
trace_netfs_sreq(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_retry);
__clear_bit(NETFS_SREQ_NEED_RETRY, &subreq->flags);
netfs: Work around recursion by abandoning retry if nothing read syzkaller reported recursion with a loop of three calls (netfs_rreq_assess, netfs_retry_reads and netfs_rreq_terminated) hitting the limit of the stack during an unbuffered or direct I/O read. There are a number of issues: (1) There is no limit on the number of retries. (2) A subrequest is supposed to be abandoned if it does not transfer anything (NETFS_SREQ_NO_PROGRESS), but that isn't checked under all circumstances. (3) The actual root cause, which is this: if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rreq->nr_outstanding)) netfs_rreq_terminated(rreq, ...); When we do a retry, we bump the rreq->nr_outstanding counter to prevent the final cleanup phase running before we've finished dispatching the retries. The problem is if we hit 0, we have to do the cleanup phase - but we're in the cleanup phase and end up repeating the retry cycle, hence the recursion. Work around the problem by limiting the number of retries. This is based on Lizhi Xu's patch[1], and makes the following changes: (1) Replace NETFS_SREQ_NO_PROGRESS with NETFS_SREQ_MADE_PROGRESS and make the filesystem set it if it managed to read or write at least one byte of data. Clear this bit before issuing a subrequest. (2) Add a ->retry_count member to the subrequest and increment it any time we do a retry. (3) Remove the NETFS_SREQ_RETRYING flag as it is superfluous with ->retry_count. If the latter is non-zero, we're doing a retry. (4) Abandon a subrequest if retry_count is non-zero and we made no progress. (5) Use ->retry_count in both the write-side and the read-size. [?] Question: Should I set a hard limit on retry_count in both read and write? Say it hits 50, we always abandon it. The problem is that these changes only mitigate the issue. As long as it made at least one byte of progress, the recursion is still an issue. This patch mitigates the problem, but does not fix the underlying cause. I have patches that will do that, but it's an intrusive fix that's currently pending for the next merge window. The oops generated by KASAN looks something like: BUG: TASK stack guard page was hit at ffffc9000482ff48 (stack is ffffc90004830000..ffffc90004838000) Oops: stack guard page: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN NOPTI ... RIP: 0010:mark_lock+0x25/0xc60 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4686 ... mark_usage kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4646 [inline] __lock_acquire+0x906/0x3ce0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5156 lock_acquire.part.0+0x11b/0x380 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5825 local_lock_acquire include/linux/local_lock_internal.h:29 [inline] ___slab_alloc+0x123/0x1880 mm/slub.c:3695 __slab_alloc.constprop.0+0x56/0xb0 mm/slub.c:3908 __slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:3961 [inline] slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:4122 [inline] kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x2a7/0x2f0 mm/slub.c:4141 radix_tree_node_alloc.constprop.0+0x1e8/0x350 lib/radix-tree.c:253 idr_get_free+0x528/0xa40 lib/radix-tree.c:1506 idr_alloc_u32+0x191/0x2f0 lib/idr.c:46 idr_alloc+0xc1/0x130 lib/idr.c:87 p9_tag_alloc+0x394/0x870 net/9p/client.c:321 p9_client_prepare_req+0x19f/0x4d0 net/9p/client.c:644 p9_client_zc_rpc.constprop.0+0x105/0x880 net/9p/client.c:793 p9_client_read_once+0x443/0x820 net/9p/client.c:1570 p9_client_read+0x13f/0x1b0 net/9p/client.c:1534 v9fs_issue_read+0x115/0x310 fs/9p/vfs_addr.c:74 netfs_retry_read_subrequests fs/netfs/read_retry.c:60 [inline] netfs_retry_reads+0x153a/0x1d00 fs/netfs/read_retry.c:232 netfs_rreq_assess+0x5d3/0x870 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:371 netfs_rreq_terminated+0xe5/0x110 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:407 netfs_retry_reads+0x155e/0x1d00 fs/netfs/read_retry.c:235 netfs_rreq_assess+0x5d3/0x870 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:371 netfs_rreq_terminated+0xe5/0x110 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:407 netfs_retry_reads+0x155e/0x1d00 fs/netfs/read_retry.c:235 netfs_rreq_assess+0x5d3/0x870 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:371 ... netfs_rreq_terminated+0xe5/0x110 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:407 netfs_retry_reads+0x155e/0x1d00 fs/netfs/read_retry.c:235 netfs_rreq_assess+0x5d3/0x870 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:371 netfs_rreq_terminated+0xe5/0x110 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:407 netfs_retry_reads+0x155e/0x1d00 fs/netfs/read_retry.c:235 netfs_rreq_assess+0x5d3/0x870 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:371 netfs_rreq_terminated+0xe5/0x110 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:407 netfs_dispatch_unbuffered_reads fs/netfs/direct_read.c:103 [inline] netfs_unbuffered_read fs/netfs/direct_read.c:127 [inline] netfs_unbuffered_read_iter_locked+0x12f6/0x19b0 fs/netfs/direct_read.c:221 netfs_unbuffered_read_iter+0xc5/0x100 fs/netfs/direct_read.c:256 v9fs_file_read_iter+0xbf/0x100 fs/9p/vfs_file.c:361 do_iter_readv_writev+0x614/0x7f0 fs/read_write.c:832 vfs_readv+0x4cf/0x890 fs/read_write.c:1025 do_preadv fs/read_write.c:1142 [inline] __do_sys_preadv fs/read_write.c:1192 [inline] __se_sys_preadv fs/read_write.c:1187 [inline] __x64_sys_preadv+0x22d/0x310 fs/read_write.c:1187 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline] do_syscall_64+0xcd/0x250 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 Fixes: ee4cdf7ba857 ("netfs: Speed up buffered reading") Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=1fc6f64c40a9d143cfb6 Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241108034020.3695718-1-lizhi.xu@windriver.com/ [1] Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241213135013.2964079-9-dhowells@redhat.com Tested-by: syzbot+885c03ad650731743489@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Suggested-by: Lizhi Xu <lizhi.xu@windriver.com> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Reported-by: syzbot+885c03ad650731743489@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2024-12-13 13:50:08 +00:00
subreq->retry_count++;
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
stream->prepare_write(subreq);
part = min(len, stream->sreq_max_len);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
subreq->len = part;
subreq->start = start;
subreq->transferred = 0;
len -= part;
start += part;
if (len && subreq == to &&
__test_and_clear_bit(NETFS_SREQ_BOUNDARY, &to->flags))
boundary = true;
netfs_get_subrequest(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_get_resubmit);
netfs_reissue_write(stream, subreq, &source);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
if (subreq == to)
break;
}
/* If we managed to use fewer subreqs, we can discard the
* excess; if we used the same number, then we're done.
*/
if (!len) {
if (subreq == to)
continue;
list_for_each_entry_safe_from(subreq, tmp,
&stream->subrequests, rreq_link) {
trace_netfs_sreq(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_discard);
list_del(&subreq->rreq_link);
netfs_put_subrequest(subreq, false, netfs_sreq_trace_put_done);
if (subreq == to)
break;
}
continue;
}
/* We ran out of subrequests, so we need to allocate some more
* and insert them after.
*/
do {
subreq = netfs_alloc_subrequest(wreq);
subreq->source = to->source;
subreq->start = start;
subreq->debug_index = atomic_inc_return(&wreq->subreq_counter);
subreq->stream_nr = to->stream_nr;
netfs: Work around recursion by abandoning retry if nothing read syzkaller reported recursion with a loop of three calls (netfs_rreq_assess, netfs_retry_reads and netfs_rreq_terminated) hitting the limit of the stack during an unbuffered or direct I/O read. There are a number of issues: (1) There is no limit on the number of retries. (2) A subrequest is supposed to be abandoned if it does not transfer anything (NETFS_SREQ_NO_PROGRESS), but that isn't checked under all circumstances. (3) The actual root cause, which is this: if (atomic_dec_and_test(&rreq->nr_outstanding)) netfs_rreq_terminated(rreq, ...); When we do a retry, we bump the rreq->nr_outstanding counter to prevent the final cleanup phase running before we've finished dispatching the retries. The problem is if we hit 0, we have to do the cleanup phase - but we're in the cleanup phase and end up repeating the retry cycle, hence the recursion. Work around the problem by limiting the number of retries. This is based on Lizhi Xu's patch[1], and makes the following changes: (1) Replace NETFS_SREQ_NO_PROGRESS with NETFS_SREQ_MADE_PROGRESS and make the filesystem set it if it managed to read or write at least one byte of data. Clear this bit before issuing a subrequest. (2) Add a ->retry_count member to the subrequest and increment it any time we do a retry. (3) Remove the NETFS_SREQ_RETRYING flag as it is superfluous with ->retry_count. If the latter is non-zero, we're doing a retry. (4) Abandon a subrequest if retry_count is non-zero and we made no progress. (5) Use ->retry_count in both the write-side and the read-size. [?] Question: Should I set a hard limit on retry_count in both read and write? Say it hits 50, we always abandon it. The problem is that these changes only mitigate the issue. As long as it made at least one byte of progress, the recursion is still an issue. This patch mitigates the problem, but does not fix the underlying cause. I have patches that will do that, but it's an intrusive fix that's currently pending for the next merge window. The oops generated by KASAN looks something like: BUG: TASK stack guard page was hit at ffffc9000482ff48 (stack is ffffc90004830000..ffffc90004838000) Oops: stack guard page: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP KASAN NOPTI ... RIP: 0010:mark_lock+0x25/0xc60 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4686 ... mark_usage kernel/locking/lockdep.c:4646 [inline] __lock_acquire+0x906/0x3ce0 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5156 lock_acquire.part.0+0x11b/0x380 kernel/locking/lockdep.c:5825 local_lock_acquire include/linux/local_lock_internal.h:29 [inline] ___slab_alloc+0x123/0x1880 mm/slub.c:3695 __slab_alloc.constprop.0+0x56/0xb0 mm/slub.c:3908 __slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:3961 [inline] slab_alloc_node mm/slub.c:4122 [inline] kmem_cache_alloc_noprof+0x2a7/0x2f0 mm/slub.c:4141 radix_tree_node_alloc.constprop.0+0x1e8/0x350 lib/radix-tree.c:253 idr_get_free+0x528/0xa40 lib/radix-tree.c:1506 idr_alloc_u32+0x191/0x2f0 lib/idr.c:46 idr_alloc+0xc1/0x130 lib/idr.c:87 p9_tag_alloc+0x394/0x870 net/9p/client.c:321 p9_client_prepare_req+0x19f/0x4d0 net/9p/client.c:644 p9_client_zc_rpc.constprop.0+0x105/0x880 net/9p/client.c:793 p9_client_read_once+0x443/0x820 net/9p/client.c:1570 p9_client_read+0x13f/0x1b0 net/9p/client.c:1534 v9fs_issue_read+0x115/0x310 fs/9p/vfs_addr.c:74 netfs_retry_read_subrequests fs/netfs/read_retry.c:60 [inline] netfs_retry_reads+0x153a/0x1d00 fs/netfs/read_retry.c:232 netfs_rreq_assess+0x5d3/0x870 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:371 netfs_rreq_terminated+0xe5/0x110 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:407 netfs_retry_reads+0x155e/0x1d00 fs/netfs/read_retry.c:235 netfs_rreq_assess+0x5d3/0x870 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:371 netfs_rreq_terminated+0xe5/0x110 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:407 netfs_retry_reads+0x155e/0x1d00 fs/netfs/read_retry.c:235 netfs_rreq_assess+0x5d3/0x870 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:371 ... netfs_rreq_terminated+0xe5/0x110 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:407 netfs_retry_reads+0x155e/0x1d00 fs/netfs/read_retry.c:235 netfs_rreq_assess+0x5d3/0x870 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:371 netfs_rreq_terminated+0xe5/0x110 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:407 netfs_retry_reads+0x155e/0x1d00 fs/netfs/read_retry.c:235 netfs_rreq_assess+0x5d3/0x870 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:371 netfs_rreq_terminated+0xe5/0x110 fs/netfs/read_collect.c:407 netfs_dispatch_unbuffered_reads fs/netfs/direct_read.c:103 [inline] netfs_unbuffered_read fs/netfs/direct_read.c:127 [inline] netfs_unbuffered_read_iter_locked+0x12f6/0x19b0 fs/netfs/direct_read.c:221 netfs_unbuffered_read_iter+0xc5/0x100 fs/netfs/direct_read.c:256 v9fs_file_read_iter+0xbf/0x100 fs/9p/vfs_file.c:361 do_iter_readv_writev+0x614/0x7f0 fs/read_write.c:832 vfs_readv+0x4cf/0x890 fs/read_write.c:1025 do_preadv fs/read_write.c:1142 [inline] __do_sys_preadv fs/read_write.c:1192 [inline] __se_sys_preadv fs/read_write.c:1187 [inline] __x64_sys_preadv+0x22d/0x310 fs/read_write.c:1187 do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:52 [inline] do_syscall_64+0xcd/0x250 arch/x86/entry/common.c:83 Fixes: ee4cdf7ba857 ("netfs: Speed up buffered reading") Closes: https://syzkaller.appspot.com/bug?extid=1fc6f64c40a9d143cfb6 Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241108034020.3695718-1-lizhi.xu@windriver.com/ [1] Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241213135013.2964079-9-dhowells@redhat.com Tested-by: syzbot+885c03ad650731743489@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Suggested-by: Lizhi Xu <lizhi.xu@windriver.com> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Reported-by: syzbot+885c03ad650731743489@syzkaller.appspotmail.com Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2024-12-13 13:50:08 +00:00
subreq->retry_count = 1;
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
trace_netfs_sreq_ref(wreq->debug_id, subreq->debug_index,
refcount_read(&subreq->ref),
netfs_sreq_trace_new);
netfs_get_subrequest(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_get_resubmit);
list_add(&subreq->rreq_link, &to->rreq_link);
to = list_next_entry(to, rreq_link);
trace_netfs_sreq(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_retry);
stream->sreq_max_len = len;
stream->sreq_max_segs = INT_MAX;
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
switch (stream->source) {
case NETFS_UPLOAD_TO_SERVER:
netfs_stat(&netfs_n_wh_upload);
stream->sreq_max_len = umin(len, wreq->wsize);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
break;
case NETFS_WRITE_TO_CACHE:
netfs_stat(&netfs_n_wh_write);
break;
default:
WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
}
stream->prepare_write(subreq);
part = umin(len, stream->sreq_max_len);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
subreq->len = subreq->transferred + part;
len -= part;
start += part;
if (!len && boundary) {
__set_bit(NETFS_SREQ_BOUNDARY, &to->flags);
boundary = false;
}
netfs_reissue_write(stream, subreq, &source);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
if (!len)
break;
} while (len);
} while (!list_is_head(next, &stream->subrequests));
}
/*
* Perform retries on the streams that need it. If we're doing content
* encryption and the server copy changed due to a third-party write, we may
* need to do an RMW cycle and also rewrite the data to the cache.
*/
static void netfs_retry_writes(struct netfs_io_request *wreq)
{
struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq;
struct netfs_io_stream *stream;
int s;
/* Wait for all outstanding I/O to quiesce before performing retries as
* we may need to renegotiate the I/O sizes.
*/
for (s = 0; s < NR_IO_STREAMS; s++) {
stream = &wreq->io_streams[s];
if (!stream->active)
continue;
list_for_each_entry(subreq, &stream->subrequests, rreq_link) {
wait_on_bit(&subreq->flags, NETFS_SREQ_IN_PROGRESS,
TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
}
}
// TODO: Enc: Fetch changed partial pages
// TODO: Enc: Reencrypt content if needed.
// TODO: Enc: Wind back transferred point.
// TODO: Enc: Mark cache pages for retry.
for (s = 0; s < NR_IO_STREAMS; s++) {
stream = &wreq->io_streams[s];
if (stream->need_retry) {
stream->need_retry = false;
netfs_retry_write_stream(wreq, stream);
}
}
}
/*
* Collect and assess the results of various write subrequests. We may need to
* retry some of the results - or even do an RMW cycle for content crypto.
*
* Note that we have a number of parallel, overlapping lists of subrequests,
* one to the server and one to the local cache for example, which may not be
* the same size or starting position and may not even correspond in boundary
* alignment.
*/
static void netfs_collect_write_results(struct netfs_io_request *wreq)
{
struct netfs_io_subrequest *front, *remove;
struct netfs_io_stream *stream;
unsigned long long collected_to, issued_to;
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
unsigned int notes;
int s;
_enter("%llx-%llx", wreq->start, wreq->start + wreq->len);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
trace_netfs_collect(wreq);
trace_netfs_rreq(wreq, netfs_rreq_trace_collect);
reassess_streams:
issued_to = atomic64_read(&wreq->issued_to);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
smp_rmb();
collected_to = ULLONG_MAX;
if (wreq->origin == NETFS_WRITEBACK ||
wreq->origin == NETFS_WRITETHROUGH ||
wreq->origin == NETFS_PGPRIV2_COPY_TO_CACHE)
notes = BUFFERED;
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
else
notes = 0;
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
/* Remove completed subrequests from the front of the streams and
* advance the completion point on each stream. We stop when we hit
* something that's in progress. The issuer thread may be adding stuff
* to the tail whilst we're doing this.
*/
for (s = 0; s < NR_IO_STREAMS; s++) {
stream = &wreq->io_streams[s];
/* Read active flag before list pointers */
if (!smp_load_acquire(&stream->active))
continue;
front = stream->front;
while (front) {
trace_netfs_collect_sreq(wreq, front);
//_debug("sreq [%x] %llx %zx/%zx",
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
// front->debug_index, front->start, front->transferred, front->len);
if (stream->collected_to < front->start) {
trace_netfs_collect_gap(wreq, stream, issued_to, 'F');
stream->collected_to = front->start;
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
}
/* Stall if the front is still undergoing I/O. */
if (test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_IN_PROGRESS, &front->flags)) {
notes |= HIT_PENDING;
break;
}
smp_rmb(); /* Read counters after I-P flag. */
if (stream->failed) {
stream->collected_to = front->start + front->len;
notes |= MADE_PROGRESS | SAW_FAILURE;
goto cancel;
}
if (front->start + front->transferred > stream->collected_to) {
stream->collected_to = front->start + front->transferred;
stream->transferred = stream->collected_to - wreq->start;
notes |= MADE_PROGRESS;
}
if (test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_FAILED, &front->flags)) {
stream->failed = true;
stream->error = front->error;
if (stream->source == NETFS_UPLOAD_TO_SERVER)
mapping_set_error(wreq->mapping, front->error);
notes |= NEED_REASSESS | SAW_FAILURE;
break;
}
if (front->transferred < front->len) {
stream->need_retry = true;
notes |= NEED_RETRY | MADE_PROGRESS;
break;
}
cancel:
/* Remove if completely consumed. */
spin_lock_bh(&wreq->lock);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
remove = front;
list_del_init(&front->rreq_link);
front = list_first_entry_or_null(&stream->subrequests,
struct netfs_io_subrequest, rreq_link);
stream->front = front;
spin_unlock_bh(&wreq->lock);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
netfs_put_subrequest(remove, false,
notes & SAW_FAILURE ?
netfs_sreq_trace_put_cancel :
netfs_sreq_trace_put_done);
}
/* If we have an empty stream, we need to jump it forward
* otherwise the collection point will never advance.
*/
if (!front && issued_to > stream->collected_to) {
trace_netfs_collect_gap(wreq, stream, issued_to, 'E');
stream->collected_to = issued_to;
}
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
if (stream->collected_to < collected_to)
collected_to = stream->collected_to;
}
if (collected_to != ULLONG_MAX && collected_to > wreq->collected_to)
wreq->collected_to = collected_to;
for (s = 0; s < NR_IO_STREAMS; s++) {
stream = &wreq->io_streams[s];
if (stream->active)
trace_netfs_collect_stream(wreq, stream);
}
trace_netfs_collect_state(wreq, wreq->collected_to, notes);
/* Unlock any folios that we have now finished with. */
if (notes & BUFFERED) {
if (wreq->cleaned_to < wreq->collected_to)
netfs_writeback_unlock_folios(wreq, &notes);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
} else {
wreq->cleaned_to = wreq->collected_to;
}
// TODO: Discard encryption buffers
if (notes & NEED_RETRY)
goto need_retry;
if ((notes & MADE_PROGRESS) && test_bit(NETFS_RREQ_PAUSE, &wreq->flags)) {
trace_netfs_rreq(wreq, netfs_rreq_trace_unpause);
clear_and_wake_up_bit(NETFS_RREQ_PAUSE, &wreq->flags);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
}
if (notes & NEED_REASSESS) {
//cond_resched();
goto reassess_streams;
}
if (notes & MADE_PROGRESS) {
//cond_resched();
goto reassess_streams;
}
out:
netfs_put_group_many(wreq->group, wreq->nr_group_rel);
wreq->nr_group_rel = 0;
_leave(" = %x", notes);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
return;
need_retry:
/* Okay... We're going to have to retry one or both streams. Note
* that any partially completed op will have had any wholly transferred
* folios removed from it.
*/
_debug("retry");
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
netfs_retry_writes(wreq);
goto out;
}
/*
* Perform the collection of subrequests, folios and encryption buffers.
*/
void netfs_write_collection_worker(struct work_struct *work)
{
struct netfs_io_request *wreq = container_of(work, struct netfs_io_request, work);
struct netfs_inode *ictx = netfs_inode(wreq->inode);
size_t transferred;
int s;
_enter("R=%x", wreq->debug_id);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
netfs_see_request(wreq, netfs_rreq_trace_see_work);
if (!test_bit(NETFS_RREQ_IN_PROGRESS, &wreq->flags)) {
netfs_put_request(wreq, false, netfs_rreq_trace_put_work);
return;
}
netfs_collect_write_results(wreq);
/* We're done when the app thread has finished posting subreqs and all
* the queues in all the streams are empty.
*/
if (!test_bit(NETFS_RREQ_ALL_QUEUED, &wreq->flags)) {
netfs_put_request(wreq, false, netfs_rreq_trace_put_work);
return;
}
smp_rmb(); /* Read ALL_QUEUED before lists. */
transferred = LONG_MAX;
for (s = 0; s < NR_IO_STREAMS; s++) {
struct netfs_io_stream *stream = &wreq->io_streams[s];
if (!stream->active)
continue;
if (!list_empty(&stream->subrequests)) {
netfs_put_request(wreq, false, netfs_rreq_trace_put_work);
return;
}
if (stream->transferred < transferred)
transferred = stream->transferred;
}
/* Okay, declare that all I/O is complete. */
wreq->transferred = transferred;
trace_netfs_rreq(wreq, netfs_rreq_trace_write_done);
if (wreq->io_streams[1].active &&
wreq->io_streams[1].failed) {
/* Cache write failure doesn't prevent writeback completion
* unless we're in disconnected mode.
*/
ictx->ops->invalidate_cache(wreq);
}
if (wreq->cleanup)
wreq->cleanup(wreq);
if (wreq->origin == NETFS_DIO_WRITE &&
wreq->mapping->nrpages) {
/* mmap may have got underfoot and we may now have folios
* locally covering the region we just wrote. Attempt to
* discard the folios, but leave in place any modified locally.
* ->write_iter() is prevented from interfering by the DIO
* counter.
*/
pgoff_t first = wreq->start >> PAGE_SHIFT;
pgoff_t last = (wreq->start + wreq->transferred - 1) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
invalidate_inode_pages2_range(wreq->mapping, first, last);
}
if (wreq->origin == NETFS_DIO_WRITE)
inode_dio_end(wreq->inode);
_debug("finished");
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
trace_netfs_rreq(wreq, netfs_rreq_trace_wake_ip);
clear_and_wake_up_bit(NETFS_RREQ_IN_PROGRESS, &wreq->flags);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
if (wreq->iocb) {
netfs: Fix io_uring based write-through This can be triggered by mounting a cifs filesystem with a cache=strict mount option and then, using the fsx program from xfstests, doing: ltp/fsx -A -d -N 1000 -S 11463 -P /tmp /cifs-mount/foo \ --replay-ops=gen112-fsxops Where gen112-fsxops holds: fallocate 0x6be7 0x8fc5 0x377d3 copy_range 0x9c71 0x77e8 0x2edaf 0x377d3 write 0x2776d 0x8f65 0x377d3 The problem is that netfs_io_request::len is being used for two purposes and ends up getting set to the amount of data we transferred, not the amount of data the caller asked to be transferred (for various reasons, such as mmap'd writes, we might end up rounding out the data written to the server to include the entire folio at each end). Fix this by keeping the amount we were asked to write in ->len and using ->submitted to track what we issued ops for. Then, when we come to calling ->ki_complete(), ->len is the right size. This also required netfs_cleanup_dio_write() to change since we're no longer advancing wreq->len. Use wreq->transferred instead as we might have done a short read. With this, the generic/112 xfstest passes if cifs is forced to put all non-DIO opens into write-through mode. Fixes: 288ace2f57c9 ("netfs: New writeback implementation") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/295086.1716298663@warthog.procyon.org.uk cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com> cc: Enzo Matsumiya <ematsumiya@suse.de> cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2024-05-21 14:37:43 +01:00
size_t written = min(wreq->transferred, wreq->len);
wreq->iocb->ki_pos += written;
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
if (wreq->iocb->ki_complete)
wreq->iocb->ki_complete(
netfs: Fix io_uring based write-through This can be triggered by mounting a cifs filesystem with a cache=strict mount option and then, using the fsx program from xfstests, doing: ltp/fsx -A -d -N 1000 -S 11463 -P /tmp /cifs-mount/foo \ --replay-ops=gen112-fsxops Where gen112-fsxops holds: fallocate 0x6be7 0x8fc5 0x377d3 copy_range 0x9c71 0x77e8 0x2edaf 0x377d3 write 0x2776d 0x8f65 0x377d3 The problem is that netfs_io_request::len is being used for two purposes and ends up getting set to the amount of data we transferred, not the amount of data the caller asked to be transferred (for various reasons, such as mmap'd writes, we might end up rounding out the data written to the server to include the entire folio at each end). Fix this by keeping the amount we were asked to write in ->len and using ->submitted to track what we issued ops for. Then, when we come to calling ->ki_complete(), ->len is the right size. This also required netfs_cleanup_dio_write() to change since we're no longer advancing wreq->len. Use wreq->transferred instead as we might have done a short read. With this, the generic/112 xfstest passes if cifs is forced to put all non-DIO opens into write-through mode. Fixes: 288ace2f57c9 ("netfs: New writeback implementation") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/295086.1716298663@warthog.procyon.org.uk cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com> cc: Enzo Matsumiya <ematsumiya@suse.de> cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2024-05-21 14:37:43 +01:00
wreq->iocb, wreq->error ? wreq->error : written);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
wreq->iocb = VFS_PTR_POISON;
}
netfs_clear_subrequests(wreq, false);
netfs_put_request(wreq, false, netfs_rreq_trace_put_work_complete);
}
/*
* Wake the collection work item.
*/
void netfs_wake_write_collector(struct netfs_io_request *wreq, bool was_async)
{
if (!work_pending(&wreq->work)) {
netfs_get_request(wreq, netfs_rreq_trace_get_work);
if (!queue_work(system_unbound_wq, &wreq->work))
netfs_put_request(wreq, was_async, netfs_rreq_trace_put_work_nq);
}
}
/**
* netfs_write_subrequest_terminated - Note the termination of a write operation.
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
* @_op: The I/O request that has terminated.
* @transferred_or_error: The amount of data transferred or an error code.
* @was_async: The termination was asynchronous
*
* This tells the library that a contributory write I/O operation has
* terminated, one way or another, and that it should collect the results.
*
* The caller indicates in @transferred_or_error the outcome of the operation,
* supplying a positive value to indicate the number of bytes transferred or a
* negative error code. The library will look after reissuing I/O operations
* as appropriate and writing downloaded data to the cache.
*
* If @was_async is true, the caller might be running in softirq or interrupt
* context and we can't sleep.
*
* When this is called, ownership of the subrequest is transferred back to the
* library, along with a ref.
*
* Note that %_op is a void* so that the function can be passed to
* kiocb::term_func without the need for a casting wrapper.
*/
void netfs_write_subrequest_terminated(void *_op, ssize_t transferred_or_error,
bool was_async)
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
{
struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq = _op;
struct netfs_io_request *wreq = subreq->rreq;
struct netfs_io_stream *stream = &wreq->io_streams[subreq->stream_nr];
_enter("%x[%x] %zd", wreq->debug_id, subreq->debug_index, transferred_or_error);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
switch (subreq->source) {
case NETFS_UPLOAD_TO_SERVER:
netfs_stat(&netfs_n_wh_upload_done);
break;
case NETFS_WRITE_TO_CACHE:
netfs_stat(&netfs_n_wh_write_done);
break;
case NETFS_INVALID_WRITE:
break;
default:
BUG();
}
if (IS_ERR_VALUE(transferred_or_error)) {
subreq->error = transferred_or_error;
if (subreq->error == -EAGAIN)
set_bit(NETFS_SREQ_NEED_RETRY, &subreq->flags);
else
set_bit(NETFS_SREQ_FAILED, &subreq->flags);
trace_netfs_failure(wreq, subreq, transferred_or_error, netfs_fail_write);
switch (subreq->source) {
case NETFS_WRITE_TO_CACHE:
netfs_stat(&netfs_n_wh_write_failed);
break;
case NETFS_UPLOAD_TO_SERVER:
netfs_stat(&netfs_n_wh_upload_failed);
break;
default:
break;
}
trace_netfs_rreq(wreq, netfs_rreq_trace_set_pause);
set_bit(NETFS_RREQ_PAUSE, &wreq->flags);
} else {
if (WARN(transferred_or_error > subreq->len - subreq->transferred,
"Subreq excess write: R=%x[%x] %zd > %zu - %zu",
wreq->debug_id, subreq->debug_index,
transferred_or_error, subreq->len, subreq->transferred))
transferred_or_error = subreq->len - subreq->transferred;
subreq->error = 0;
subreq->transferred += transferred_or_error;
if (subreq->transferred < subreq->len)
set_bit(NETFS_SREQ_NEED_RETRY, &subreq->flags);
}
trace_netfs_sreq(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_terminated);
clear_and_wake_up_bit(NETFS_SREQ_IN_PROGRESS, &subreq->flags);
netfs: New writeback implementation The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few issues: (1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request. This makes it harder to do vectored writes. (2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes. (3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications (which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently, these are treated as discontiguous. There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter() has some issues that make it less than ideal: (1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary" error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going to fail; (2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system; (3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and relock it later. In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios, progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the folios. Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.: +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ Folios: | | | | | | | +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+ +------+------+ +----+----+ Upload: | | |.....| | | +------+------+ +----+----+ +------+------+------+------+------+ Cache: | | | | | | +------+------+------+------+------+ The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order, particularly if the file will be extended. Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to pull off. The algorithm is split into three parts: (1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes. (2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests, unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async writes. (3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting), and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on the server. [!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch that cuts over to the new algorithm. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org> cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net> cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org> cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
/* If we are at the head of the queue, wake up the collector,
* transferring a ref to it if we were the ones to do so.
*/
if (list_is_first(&subreq->rreq_link, &stream->subrequests))
netfs_wake_write_collector(wreq, was_async);
netfs_put_subrequest(subreq, was_async, netfs_sreq_trace_put_terminated);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(netfs_write_subrequest_terminated);