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 high-level (buffered) writeback.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Copyright (C) 2024 Red Hat, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
|
|
|
* Written by David Howells (dhowells@redhat.com)
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* To support network filesystems with local caching, we manage a situation
|
|
|
|
|
* that can be envisioned like the following:
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
|
|
|
|
|
* Folios: | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
* +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* +------+------+ +----+----+
|
|
|
|
|
* Upload: | | |.....| | |
|
|
|
|
|
* (Stream 0) +------+------+ +----+----+
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* +------+------+------+------+------+
|
|
|
|
|
* Cache: | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
* (Stream 1) +------+------+------+------+------+
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Where we have a sequence of folios of varying sizes that we need to overlay
|
|
|
|
|
* with multiple parallel streams of I/O requests, where the I/O requests in a
|
|
|
|
|
* stream may also be of various sizes (in cifs, for example, the sizes are
|
|
|
|
|
* negotiated with the server; in something like ceph, they may represent the
|
|
|
|
|
* sizes of storage objects).
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* The sequence in each stream may contain gaps and noncontiguous subrequests
|
|
|
|
|
* may be glued together into single vectored write RPCs.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/export.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/fs.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/mm.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/pagemap.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#include "internal.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Kill all dirty folios in the event of an unrecoverable error, starting with
|
|
|
|
|
* a locked folio we've already obtained from writeback_iter().
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void netfs_kill_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
|
|
|
|
|
struct writeback_control *wbc,
|
|
|
|
|
struct folio *folio)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
int error = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
do {
|
|
|
|
|
enum netfs_folio_trace why = netfs_folio_trace_kill;
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_group *group = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_folio *finfo = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
void *priv;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
priv = folio_detach_private(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
if (priv) {
|
|
|
|
|
finfo = __netfs_folio_info(priv);
|
|
|
|
|
if (finfo) {
|
|
|
|
|
/* Kill folio from streaming write. */
|
|
|
|
|
group = finfo->netfs_group;
|
|
|
|
|
why = netfs_folio_trace_kill_s;
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
|
group = priv;
|
|
|
|
|
if (group == NETFS_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE) {
|
|
|
|
|
/* Kill copy-to-cache folio */
|
|
|
|
|
why = netfs_folio_trace_kill_cc;
|
|
|
|
|
group = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
|
/* Kill folio with group */
|
|
|
|
|
why = netfs_folio_trace_kill_g;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_folio(folio, why);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
folio_start_writeback(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
folio_unlock(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
folio_end_writeback(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_put_group(group);
|
|
|
|
|
kfree(finfo);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} while ((folio = writeback_iter(mapping, wbc, folio, &error)));
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Create a write request and set it up appropriately for the origin type.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_request *netfs_create_write_req(struct address_space *mapping,
|
|
|
|
|
struct file *file,
|
|
|
|
|
loff_t start,
|
|
|
|
|
enum netfs_io_origin origin)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_request *wreq;
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_inode *ictx;
|
netfs: Fix handling of USE_PGPRIV2 and WRITE_TO_CACHE flags
The NETFS_RREQ_USE_PGPRIV2 and NETFS_RREQ_WRITE_TO_CACHE flags aren't used
correctly. The problem is that we try to set them up in the request
initialisation, but we the cache may be in the process of setting up still,
and so the state may not be correct. Further, we secondarily sample the
cache state and make contradictory decisions later.
The issue arises because we set up the cache resources, which allows the
cache's ->prepare_read() to switch on NETFS_SREQ_COPY_TO_CACHE - which
triggers cache writing even if we didn't set the flags when allocating.
Fix this in the following way:
(1) Drop NETFS_ICTX_USE_PGPRIV2 and instead set NETFS_RREQ_USE_PGPRIV2 in
->init_request() rather than trying to juggle that in
netfs_alloc_request().
(2) Repurpose NETFS_RREQ_USE_PGPRIV2 to merely indicate that if caching is
to be done, then PG_private_2 is to be used rather than only setting
it if we decide to cache and then having netfs_rreq_unlock_folios()
set the non-PG_private_2 writeback-to-cache if it wasn't set.
(3) Split netfs_rreq_unlock_folios() into two functions, one of which
contains the deprecated code for using PG_private_2 to avoid
accidentally doing the writeback path - and always use it if
USE_PGPRIV2 is set.
(4) As NETFS_ICTX_USE_PGPRIV2 is removed, make netfs_write_begin() always
wait for PG_private_2. This function is deprecated and only used by
ceph anyway, and so label it so.
(5) Drop the NETFS_RREQ_WRITE_TO_CACHE flag and use
fscache_operation_valid() on the cache_resources instead. This has
the advantage of picking up the result of netfs_begin_cache_read() and
fscache_begin_write_operation() - which are called after the object is
initialised and will wait for the cache to come to a usable state.
Just reverting ae678317b95e[1] isn't a sufficient fix, so this need to be
applied on top of that. Without this as well, things like:
rcu: INFO: rcu_sched detected expedited stalls on CPUs/tasks: {
and:
WARNING: CPU: 13 PID: 3621 at fs/ceph/caps.c:3386
may happen, along with some UAFs due to PG_private_2 not getting used to
wait on writeback completion.
Fixes: 2ff1e97587f4 ("netfs: Replace PG_fscache by setting folio->private and marking dirty")
Reported-by: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@ionos.com>
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
cc: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
cc: Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>
cc: Hristo Venev <hristo@venev.name>
cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/3575457.1722355300@warthog.procyon.org.uk/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1173209.1723152682@warthog.procyon.org.uk
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2024-08-07 19:38:46 +01:00
|
|
|
bool is_buffered = (origin == NETFS_WRITEBACK ||
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
origin == NETFS_WRITETHROUGH ||
|
|
|
|
|
origin == NETFS_PGPRIV2_COPY_TO_CACHE);
|
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 = netfs_alloc_request(mapping, file, start, 0, origin);
|
|
|
|
|
if (IS_ERR(wreq))
|
|
|
|
|
return wreq;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-18 21:07:32 +01:00
|
|
|
_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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ictx = netfs_inode(wreq->inode);
|
netfs: Fix handling of USE_PGPRIV2 and WRITE_TO_CACHE flags
The NETFS_RREQ_USE_PGPRIV2 and NETFS_RREQ_WRITE_TO_CACHE flags aren't used
correctly. The problem is that we try to set them up in the request
initialisation, but we the cache may be in the process of setting up still,
and so the state may not be correct. Further, we secondarily sample the
cache state and make contradictory decisions later.
The issue arises because we set up the cache resources, which allows the
cache's ->prepare_read() to switch on NETFS_SREQ_COPY_TO_CACHE - which
triggers cache writing even if we didn't set the flags when allocating.
Fix this in the following way:
(1) Drop NETFS_ICTX_USE_PGPRIV2 and instead set NETFS_RREQ_USE_PGPRIV2 in
->init_request() rather than trying to juggle that in
netfs_alloc_request().
(2) Repurpose NETFS_RREQ_USE_PGPRIV2 to merely indicate that if caching is
to be done, then PG_private_2 is to be used rather than only setting
it if we decide to cache and then having netfs_rreq_unlock_folios()
set the non-PG_private_2 writeback-to-cache if it wasn't set.
(3) Split netfs_rreq_unlock_folios() into two functions, one of which
contains the deprecated code for using PG_private_2 to avoid
accidentally doing the writeback path - and always use it if
USE_PGPRIV2 is set.
(4) As NETFS_ICTX_USE_PGPRIV2 is removed, make netfs_write_begin() always
wait for PG_private_2. This function is deprecated and only used by
ceph anyway, and so label it so.
(5) Drop the NETFS_RREQ_WRITE_TO_CACHE flag and use
fscache_operation_valid() on the cache_resources instead. This has
the advantage of picking up the result of netfs_begin_cache_read() and
fscache_begin_write_operation() - which are called after the object is
initialised and will wait for the cache to come to a usable state.
Just reverting ae678317b95e[1] isn't a sufficient fix, so this need to be
applied on top of that. Without this as well, things like:
rcu: INFO: rcu_sched detected expedited stalls on CPUs/tasks: {
and:
WARNING: CPU: 13 PID: 3621 at fs/ceph/caps.c:3386
may happen, along with some UAFs due to PG_private_2 not getting used to
wait on writeback completion.
Fixes: 2ff1e97587f4 ("netfs: Replace PG_fscache by setting folio->private and marking dirty")
Reported-by: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@ionos.com>
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
cc: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
cc: Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>
cc: Hristo Venev <hristo@venev.name>
cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/3575457.1722355300@warthog.procyon.org.uk/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1173209.1723152682@warthog.procyon.org.uk
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2024-08-07 19:38:46 +01:00
|
|
|
if (is_buffered && netfs_is_cache_enabled(ictx))
|
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
|
|
|
fscache_begin_write_operation(&wreq->cache_resources, netfs_i_cookie(ictx));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->cleaned_to = wreq->start;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[0].stream_nr = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[0].source = NETFS_UPLOAD_TO_SERVER;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[0].prepare_write = ictx->ops->prepare_write;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[0].issue_write = ictx->ops->issue_write;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[0].collected_to = start;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[0].transferred = LONG_MAX;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[1].stream_nr = 1;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[1].source = NETFS_WRITE_TO_CACHE;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[1].collected_to = start;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[1].transferred = LONG_MAX;
|
|
|
|
|
if (fscache_resources_valid(&wreq->cache_resources)) {
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[1].avail = true;
|
netfs: Fix writeback that needs to go to both server and cache
When netfslib is performing writeback (ie. ->writepages), it maintains two
parallel streams of writes, one to the server and one to the cache, but it
doesn't mark either stream of writes as active until it gets some data that
needs to be written to that stream.
This is done because some folios will only be written to the cache
(e.g. copying to the cache on read is done by marking the folios and
letting writeback do the actual work) and sometimes we'll only be writing
to the server (e.g. if there's no cache).
Now, since we don't actually dispatch uploads and cache writes in parallel,
but rather flip between the streams, depending on which has the lowest
so-far-issued offset, and don't wait for the subreqs to finish before
flipping, we can end up in a situation where, say, we issue a write to the
server and this completes before we start the write to the cache.
But because we only activate a stream when we first add a subreq to it, the
result collection code may run before we manage to activate the stream -
resulting in the folio being cleaned and having the writeback-in-progress
mark removed. At this point, the folio no longer belongs to us.
This is only really a problem for folios that need to be written to both
streams - and in that case, the upload to the server is started first,
followed by the write to the cache - and the cache write may see a bad
folio.
Fix this by activating the cache stream up front if there's a cache
available. If there's a cache, then all data is going to be written to it.
Fixes: 288ace2f57c9 ("netfs: New writeback implementation")
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1599053.1721398818@warthog.procyon.org.uk
cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2024-07-19 15:20:18 +01:00
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[1].active = true;
|
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->io_streams[1].prepare_write = wreq->cache_resources.ops->prepare_write_subreq;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[1].issue_write = wreq->cache_resources.ops->issue_write;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return wreq;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* netfs_prepare_write_failed - Note write preparation failed
|
|
|
|
|
* @subreq: The subrequest to mark
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Mark a subrequest to note that preparation for write failed.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
void netfs_prepare_write_failed(struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
__set_bit(NETFS_SREQ_FAILED, &subreq->flags);
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_sreq(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_prep_failed);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(netfs_prepare_write_failed);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Prepare a write subrequest. We need to allocate a new subrequest
|
|
|
|
|
* if we don't have one.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void netfs_prepare_write(struct netfs_io_request *wreq,
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_stream *stream,
|
|
|
|
|
loff_t start)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq;
|
netfs: Fix write oops in generic/346 (9p) and generic/074 (cifs)
In netfslib, a buffered writeback operation has a 'write queue' of folios
that are being written, held in a linear sequence of folio_queue structs.
The 'issuer' adds new folio_queues on the leading edge of the queue and
populates each one progressively; the 'collector' pops them off the
trailing edge and discards them and the folios they point to as they are
consumed.
The queue is required to always retain at least one folio_queue structure.
This allows the queue to be accessed without locking and with just a bit of
barriering.
When a new subrequest is prepared, its ->io_iter iterator is pointed at the
current end of the write queue and then the iterator is extended as more
data is added to the queue until the subrequest is committed.
Now, the problem is that the folio_queue at the leading edge of the write
queue when a subrequest is prepared might have been entirely consumed - but
not yet removed from the queue as it is the only remaining one and is
preventing the queue from collapsing.
So, what happens is that subreq->io_iter is pointed at the spent
folio_queue, then a new folio_queue is added, and, at that point, the
collector is at entirely at liberty to immediately delete the spent
folio_queue.
This leaves the subreq->io_iter pointing at a freed object. If the system
is lucky, iterate_folioq() sees ->io_iter, sees the as-yet uncorrupted
freed object and advances to the next folio_queue in the queue.
In the case seen, however, the freed object gets recycled and put back onto
the queue at the tail and filled to the end. This confuses
iterate_folioq() and it tries to step ->next, which may be NULL - resulting
in an oops.
Fix this by the following means:
(1) When preparing a write subrequest, make sure there's a folio_queue
struct with space in it at the leading edge of the queue. A function
to make space is split out of the function to append a folio so that
it can be called for this purpose.
(2) If the request struct iterator is pointing to a completely spent
folio_queue when we make space, then advance the iterator to the newly
allocated folio_queue. The subrequest's iterator will then be set
from this.
The oops could be triggered using the generic/346 xfstest with a filesystem
on9P over TCP with cache=loose. The oops looked something like:
BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000008
#PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode
#PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page
...
RIP: 0010:_copy_from_iter+0x2db/0x530
...
Call Trace:
<TASK>
...
p9pdu_vwritef+0x3d8/0x5d0
p9_client_prepare_req+0xa8/0x140
p9_client_rpc+0x81/0x280
p9_client_write+0xcf/0x1c0
v9fs_issue_write+0x87/0xc0
netfs_advance_write+0xa0/0xb0
netfs_write_folio.isra.0+0x42d/0x500
netfs_writepages+0x15a/0x1f0
do_writepages+0xd1/0x220
filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x5c/0x80
v9fs_mmap_vm_close+0x7d/0xb0
remove_vma+0x35/0x70
vms_complete_munmap_vmas+0x11a/0x170
do_vmi_align_munmap+0x17d/0x1c0
do_vmi_munmap+0x13e/0x150
__vm_munmap+0x92/0xd0
__x64_sys_munmap+0x17/0x20
do_syscall_64+0x80/0xe0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x71/0x79
This also fixed a similar-looking issue with cifs and generic/074.
Fixes: cd0277ed0c18 ("netfs: Use new folio_queue data type and iterator instead of xarray iter")
Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202409180928.f20b5a08-oliver.sang@intel.com
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202409131438.3f225fbf-oliver.sang@intel.com
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Tested-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
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: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
2024-09-26 14:58:30 +01:00
|
|
|
struct iov_iter *wreq_iter = &wreq->io_iter;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Make sure we don't point the iterator at a used-up folio_queue
|
|
|
|
|
* struct being used as a placeholder to prevent the queue from
|
|
|
|
|
* collapsing. In such a case, extend the queue.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (iov_iter_is_folioq(wreq_iter) &&
|
|
|
|
|
wreq_iter->folioq_slot >= folioq_nr_slots(wreq_iter->folioq)) {
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_buffer_make_space(wreq);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
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 = netfs_alloc_subrequest(wreq);
|
|
|
|
|
subreq->source = stream->source;
|
|
|
|
|
subreq->start = start;
|
|
|
|
|
subreq->stream_nr = stream->stream_nr;
|
netfs: Fix write oops in generic/346 (9p) and generic/074 (cifs)
In netfslib, a buffered writeback operation has a 'write queue' of folios
that are being written, held in a linear sequence of folio_queue structs.
The 'issuer' adds new folio_queues on the leading edge of the queue and
populates each one progressively; the 'collector' pops them off the
trailing edge and discards them and the folios they point to as they are
consumed.
The queue is required to always retain at least one folio_queue structure.
This allows the queue to be accessed without locking and with just a bit of
barriering.
When a new subrequest is prepared, its ->io_iter iterator is pointed at the
current end of the write queue and then the iterator is extended as more
data is added to the queue until the subrequest is committed.
Now, the problem is that the folio_queue at the leading edge of the write
queue when a subrequest is prepared might have been entirely consumed - but
not yet removed from the queue as it is the only remaining one and is
preventing the queue from collapsing.
So, what happens is that subreq->io_iter is pointed at the spent
folio_queue, then a new folio_queue is added, and, at that point, the
collector is at entirely at liberty to immediately delete the spent
folio_queue.
This leaves the subreq->io_iter pointing at a freed object. If the system
is lucky, iterate_folioq() sees ->io_iter, sees the as-yet uncorrupted
freed object and advances to the next folio_queue in the queue.
In the case seen, however, the freed object gets recycled and put back onto
the queue at the tail and filled to the end. This confuses
iterate_folioq() and it tries to step ->next, which may be NULL - resulting
in an oops.
Fix this by the following means:
(1) When preparing a write subrequest, make sure there's a folio_queue
struct with space in it at the leading edge of the queue. A function
to make space is split out of the function to append a folio so that
it can be called for this purpose.
(2) If the request struct iterator is pointing to a completely spent
folio_queue when we make space, then advance the iterator to the newly
allocated folio_queue. The subrequest's iterator will then be set
from this.
The oops could be triggered using the generic/346 xfstest with a filesystem
on9P over TCP with cache=loose. The oops looked something like:
BUG: kernel NULL pointer dereference, address: 0000000000000008
#PF: supervisor read access in kernel mode
#PF: error_code(0x0000) - not-present page
...
RIP: 0010:_copy_from_iter+0x2db/0x530
...
Call Trace:
<TASK>
...
p9pdu_vwritef+0x3d8/0x5d0
p9_client_prepare_req+0xa8/0x140
p9_client_rpc+0x81/0x280
p9_client_write+0xcf/0x1c0
v9fs_issue_write+0x87/0xc0
netfs_advance_write+0xa0/0xb0
netfs_write_folio.isra.0+0x42d/0x500
netfs_writepages+0x15a/0x1f0
do_writepages+0xd1/0x220
filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x5c/0x80
v9fs_mmap_vm_close+0x7d/0xb0
remove_vma+0x35/0x70
vms_complete_munmap_vmas+0x11a/0x170
do_vmi_align_munmap+0x17d/0x1c0
do_vmi_munmap+0x13e/0x150
__vm_munmap+0x92/0xd0
__x64_sys_munmap+0x17/0x20
do_syscall_64+0x80/0xe0
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x71/0x79
This also fixed a similar-looking issue with cifs and generic/074.
Fixes: cd0277ed0c18 ("netfs: Use new folio_queue data type and iterator instead of xarray iter")
Reported-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202409180928.f20b5a08-oliver.sang@intel.com
Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/oe-lkp/202409131438.3f225fbf-oliver.sang@intel.com
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Tested-by: kernel test robot <oliver.sang@intel.com>
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: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com>
2024-09-26 14:58:30 +01:00
|
|
|
subreq->io_iter = *wreq_iter;
|
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
|
|
|
|
2024-07-18 21:07:32 +01:00
|
|
|
_enter("R=%x[%x]", wreq->debug_id, subreq->debug_index);
|
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(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_prepare);
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-06-07 09:02:58 +01:00
|
|
|
stream->sreq_max_len = UINT_MAX;
|
|
|
|
|
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);
|
2024-06-07 09:02:58 +01:00
|
|
|
stream->sreq_max_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);
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (stream->prepare_write)
|
|
|
|
|
stream->prepare_write(subreq);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__set_bit(NETFS_SREQ_IN_PROGRESS, &subreq->flags);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* We add to the end of the list whilst the collector may be walking
|
|
|
|
|
* the list. The collector only goes nextwards and uses the lock to
|
|
|
|
|
* remove entries off of the front.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2024-07-12 11:54:11 +01:00
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
list_add_tail(&subreq->rreq_link, &stream->subrequests);
|
|
|
|
|
if (list_is_first(&subreq->rreq_link, &stream->subrequests)) {
|
|
|
|
|
stream->front = subreq;
|
|
|
|
|
if (!stream->active) {
|
|
|
|
|
stream->collected_to = stream->front->start;
|
|
|
|
|
/* Write list pointers before active flag */
|
|
|
|
|
smp_store_release(&stream->active, true);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-12 11:54:11 +01:00
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stream->construct = subreq;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Set the I/O iterator for the filesystem/cache to use and dispatch the I/O
|
|
|
|
|
* operation. The operation may be asynchronous and should call
|
|
|
|
|
* netfs_write_subrequest_terminated() when complete.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void netfs_do_issue_write(struct netfs_io_stream *stream,
|
2024-06-06 07:48:55 +01:00
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq)
|
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_request *wreq = subreq->rreq;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-18 21:07:32 +01:00
|
|
|
_enter("R=%x[%x],%zx", wreq->debug_id, subreq->debug_index, subreq->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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_FAILED, &subreq->flags))
|
|
|
|
|
return netfs_write_subrequest_terminated(subreq, subreq->error, false);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_sreq(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_submit);
|
|
|
|
|
stream->issue_write(subreq);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void netfs_reissue_write(struct netfs_io_stream *stream,
|
2024-05-29 21:47:07 +01:00
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq,
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
{
|
2024-06-06 07:48:55 +01:00
|
|
|
size_t size = subreq->len - subreq->transferred;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// TODO: Use encrypted buffer
|
|
|
|
|
subreq->io_iter = *source;
|
|
|
|
|
iov_iter_advance(source, size);
|
|
|
|
|
iov_iter_truncate(&subreq->io_iter, size);
|
|
|
|
|
|
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++;
|
|
|
|
|
__clear_bit(NETFS_SREQ_MADE_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
|
|
|
__set_bit(NETFS_SREQ_IN_PROGRESS, &subreq->flags);
|
2024-06-06 07:48:55 +01:00
|
|
|
netfs_do_issue_write(stream, subreq);
|
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
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
void netfs_issue_write(struct netfs_io_request *wreq,
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_stream *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
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq = stream->construct;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!subreq)
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
stream->construct = NULL;
|
2024-06-06 07:48:55 +01:00
|
|
|
subreq->io_iter.count = subreq->len;
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_do_issue_write(stream, subreq);
|
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
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Add data to the write subrequest, dispatching each as we fill it up or if it
|
|
|
|
|
* is discontiguous with the previous. We only fill one part at a time so that
|
|
|
|
|
* we can avoid overrunning the credits obtained (cifs) and try to parallelise
|
|
|
|
|
* content-crypto preparation with network writes.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
int netfs_advance_write(struct netfs_io_request *wreq,
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_stream *stream,
|
|
|
|
|
loff_t start, size_t len, bool to_eof)
|
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 = stream->construct;
|
|
|
|
|
size_t part;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!stream->avail) {
|
2024-07-18 21:07:32 +01:00
|
|
|
_leave("no write");
|
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 len;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-18 21:07:32 +01:00
|
|
|
_enter("R=%x[%x]", wreq->debug_id, subreq ? subreq->debug_index : 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 (subreq && start != subreq->start + subreq->len) {
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, stream);
|
|
|
|
|
subreq = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!stream->construct)
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_prepare_write(wreq, stream, start);
|
|
|
|
|
subreq = stream->construct;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-06-07 09:02:58 +01:00
|
|
|
part = umin(stream->sreq_max_len - subreq->len, len);
|
|
|
|
|
_debug("part %zx/%zx %zx/%zx", subreq->len, stream->sreq_max_len, part, 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->nr_segs++;
|
2024-07-12 12:44:30 +01:00
|
|
|
stream->submit_extendable_to -= part;
|
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
|
|
|
|
2024-06-07 09:02:58 +01:00
|
|
|
if (subreq->len >= stream->sreq_max_len ||
|
|
|
|
|
subreq->nr_segs >= stream->sreq_max_segs ||
|
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
|
|
|
to_eof) {
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, stream);
|
|
|
|
|
subreq = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return part;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Write some of a pending folio data back to the server.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static int netfs_write_folio(struct netfs_io_request *wreq,
|
|
|
|
|
struct writeback_control *wbc,
|
|
|
|
|
struct folio *folio)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_stream *upload = &wreq->io_streams[0];
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_stream *cache = &wreq->io_streams[1];
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_stream *stream;
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_group *fgroup; /* TODO: Use this with ceph */
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_folio *finfo;
|
2024-09-27 09:08:42 +01:00
|
|
|
size_t iter_off = 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
|
|
|
size_t fsize = folio_size(folio), flen = fsize, foff = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
loff_t fpos = folio_pos(folio), i_size;
|
|
|
|
|
bool to_eof = false, streamw = false;
|
|
|
|
|
bool debug = false;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-18 21:07:32 +01:00
|
|
|
_enter("");
|
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_perform_write() may shift i_size around the page or from out
|
|
|
|
|
* of the page to beyond it, but cannot move i_size into or through the
|
|
|
|
|
* page since we have it locked.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
i_size = i_size_read(wreq->inode);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (fpos >= i_size) {
|
|
|
|
|
/* mmap beyond eof. */
|
2024-07-18 21:07:32 +01:00
|
|
|
_debug("beyond eof");
|
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_start_writeback(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
folio_unlock(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->nr_group_rel += netfs_folio_written_back(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_put_group_many(wreq->group, wreq->nr_group_rel);
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->nr_group_rel = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (fpos + fsize > wreq->i_size)
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->i_size = i_size;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fgroup = netfs_folio_group(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
finfo = netfs_folio_info(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
if (finfo) {
|
|
|
|
|
foff = finfo->dirty_offset;
|
|
|
|
|
flen = foff + finfo->dirty_len;
|
|
|
|
|
streamw = true;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (wreq->origin == NETFS_WRITETHROUGH) {
|
|
|
|
|
to_eof = false;
|
|
|
|
|
if (flen > i_size - fpos)
|
|
|
|
|
flen = i_size - fpos;
|
|
|
|
|
} else if (flen > i_size - fpos) {
|
|
|
|
|
flen = i_size - fpos;
|
|
|
|
|
if (!streamw)
|
|
|
|
|
folio_zero_segment(folio, flen, fsize);
|
|
|
|
|
to_eof = true;
|
|
|
|
|
} else if (flen == i_size - fpos) {
|
|
|
|
|
to_eof = true;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
flen -= foff;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-18 21:07:32 +01:00
|
|
|
_debug("folio %zx %zx %zx", foff, flen, fsize);
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Deal with discontinuities in the stream of dirty pages. These can
|
|
|
|
|
* arise from a number of sources:
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* (1) Intervening non-dirty pages from random-access writes, multiple
|
|
|
|
|
* flushers writing back different parts simultaneously and manual
|
|
|
|
|
* syncing.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* (2) Partially-written pages from write-streaming.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* (3) Pages that belong to a different write-back group (eg. Ceph
|
|
|
|
|
* snapshots).
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* (4) Actually-clean pages that were marked for write to the cache
|
|
|
|
|
* when they were read. Note that these appear as a special
|
|
|
|
|
* write-back group.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (fgroup == NETFS_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE) {
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, upload);
|
|
|
|
|
} else if (fgroup != wreq->group) {
|
|
|
|
|
/* We can't write this page to the server yet. */
|
|
|
|
|
kdebug("wrong group");
|
|
|
|
|
folio_redirty_for_writepage(wbc, folio);
|
|
|
|
|
folio_unlock(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, upload);
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, cache);
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (foff > 0)
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, upload);
|
|
|
|
|
if (streamw)
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, cache);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Flip the page to the writeback state and unlock. If we're called
|
|
|
|
|
* from write-through, then the page has already been put into the wb
|
|
|
|
|
* state.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (wreq->origin == NETFS_WRITEBACK)
|
|
|
|
|
folio_start_writeback(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
folio_unlock(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (fgroup == NETFS_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE) {
|
netfs: Cancel dirty folios that have no storage destination
Kafs wants to be able to cache the contents of directories (and symlinks),
but whilst these are downloaded from the server with the FS.FetchData RPC
op and similar, the same as for regular files, they can't be updated by
FS.StoreData, but rather have special operations (FS.MakeDir, etc.).
Now, rather than redownloading a directory's content after each change made
to that directory, kafs modifies the local blob. This blob can be saved
out to the cache, and since it's using netfslib, kafs just marks the folios
dirty and lets ->writepages() on the directory take care of it, as for an
regular file.
This is fine as long as there's a cache as although the upload stream is
disabled, there's a cache stream to drive the procedure. But if the cache
goes away in the meantime, suddenly there's no way do any writes and the
code gets confused, complains "R=%x: No submit" to dmesg and leaves the
dirty folio hanging.
Fix this by just cancelling the store of the folio if neither stream is
active. (If there's no cache at the time of dirtying, we should just not
mark the folio dirty).
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240814203850.2240469-23-dhowells@redhat.com/ # v2
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2024-07-29 12:23:11 +01:00
|
|
|
if (!cache->avail) {
|
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_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_cancel_copy);
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, upload);
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_folio_written_back(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_store_copy);
|
netfs: Cancel dirty folios that have no storage destination
Kafs wants to be able to cache the contents of directories (and symlinks),
but whilst these are downloaded from the server with the FS.FetchData RPC
op and similar, the same as for regular files, they can't be updated by
FS.StoreData, but rather have special operations (FS.MakeDir, etc.).
Now, rather than redownloading a directory's content after each change made
to that directory, kafs modifies the local blob. This blob can be saved
out to the cache, and since it's using netfslib, kafs just marks the folios
dirty and lets ->writepages() on the directory take care of it, as for an
regular file.
This is fine as long as there's a cache as although the upload stream is
disabled, there's a cache stream to drive the procedure. But if the cache
goes away in the meantime, suddenly there's no way do any writes and the
code gets confused, complains "R=%x: No submit" to dmesg and leaves the
dirty folio hanging.
Fix this by just cancelling the store of the folio if neither stream is
active. (If there's no cache at the time of dirtying, we should just not
mark the folio dirty).
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240814203850.2240469-23-dhowells@redhat.com/ # v2
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2024-07-29 12:23:11 +01:00
|
|
|
} else if (!upload->avail && !cache->avail) {
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_cancel_store);
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_folio_written_back(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
return 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
|
|
|
} else if (!upload->construct) {
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_store);
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_store_plus);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-05-29 21:47:07 +01:00
|
|
|
/* Attach the folio to the rolling buffer. */
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_buffer_append_folio(wreq, folio, false);
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
/* Move the submission point forward to allow for write-streaming data
|
|
|
|
|
* not starting at the front of the page. We don't do write-streaming
|
|
|
|
|
* with the cache as the cache requires DIO alignment.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Also skip uploading for data that's been read and just needs copying
|
|
|
|
|
* to the cache.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
for (int s = 0; s < NR_IO_STREAMS; s++) {
|
|
|
|
|
stream = &wreq->io_streams[s];
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_off = foff;
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_len = flen;
|
|
|
|
|
if ((stream->source == NETFS_WRITE_TO_CACHE && streamw) ||
|
|
|
|
|
(stream->source == NETFS_UPLOAD_TO_SERVER &&
|
|
|
|
|
fgroup == NETFS_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE)) {
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_off = UINT_MAX;
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_len = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Attach the folio to one or more subrequests. For a big folio, we
|
|
|
|
|
* could end up with thousands of subrequests if the wsize is small -
|
|
|
|
|
* but we might need to wait during the creation of subrequests for
|
|
|
|
|
* network resources (eg. SMB credits).
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
for (;;) {
|
|
|
|
|
ssize_t part;
|
|
|
|
|
size_t lowest_off = ULONG_MAX;
|
|
|
|
|
int choose_s = -1;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Always add to the lowest-submitted stream first. */
|
|
|
|
|
for (int s = 0; s < NR_IO_STREAMS; s++) {
|
|
|
|
|
stream = &wreq->io_streams[s];
|
|
|
|
|
if (stream->submit_len > 0 &&
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_off < lowest_off) {
|
|
|
|
|
lowest_off = stream->submit_off;
|
|
|
|
|
choose_s = s;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (choose_s < 0)
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
stream = &wreq->io_streams[choose_s];
|
2024-09-27 09:08:42 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Advance the iterator(s). */
|
|
|
|
|
if (stream->submit_off > iter_off) {
|
|
|
|
|
iov_iter_advance(&wreq->io_iter, stream->submit_off - iter_off);
|
|
|
|
|
iter_off = stream->submit_off;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
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
|
|
|
|
2024-06-06 07:48:55 +01:00
|
|
|
atomic64_set(&wreq->issued_to, fpos + stream->submit_off);
|
2024-07-12 12:44:30 +01:00
|
|
|
stream->submit_extendable_to = fsize - stream->submit_off;
|
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
|
|
|
part = netfs_advance_write(wreq, stream, fpos + stream->submit_off,
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_len, to_eof);
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_off += part;
|
|
|
|
|
if (part > stream->submit_len)
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_len = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_len -= part;
|
|
|
|
|
if (part > 0)
|
|
|
|
|
debug = true;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-09-27 09:08:42 +01:00
|
|
|
if (fsize > iter_off)
|
|
|
|
|
iov_iter_advance(&wreq->io_iter, fsize - iter_off);
|
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
|
|
|
atomic64_set(&wreq->issued_to, fpos + fsize);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!debug)
|
|
|
|
|
kdebug("R=%x: No submit", wreq->debug_id);
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-06-05 22:18:04 +01:00
|
|
|
if (foff + flen < fsize)
|
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 (int s = 0; s < NR_IO_STREAMS; s++)
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, &wreq->io_streams[s]);
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-18 21:07:32 +01:00
|
|
|
_leave(" = 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
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-10-02 15:45:50 +01:00
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* End the issuing of writes, letting the collector know we're done.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void netfs_end_issue_write(struct netfs_io_request *wreq)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
bool needs_poke = true;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smp_wmb(); /* Write subreq lists before ALL_QUEUED. */
|
|
|
|
|
set_bit(NETFS_RREQ_ALL_QUEUED, &wreq->flags);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for (int 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))
|
|
|
|
|
needs_poke = false;
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, stream);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (needs_poke)
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_wake_write_collector(wreq, false);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Write some of the pending data back to the server
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2024-03-08 12:36:05 +00:00
|
|
|
int netfs_writepages(struct address_space *mapping,
|
|
|
|
|
struct writeback_control *wbc)
|
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_inode *ictx = netfs_inode(mapping->host);
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_request *wreq = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
struct folio *folio;
|
|
|
|
|
int error = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-05-31 15:48:29 +01:00
|
|
|
if (!mutex_trylock(&ictx->wb_lock)) {
|
|
|
|
|
if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE) {
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_stat(&netfs_n_wb_lock_skip);
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_stat(&netfs_n_wb_lock_wait);
|
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
|
|
|
mutex_lock(&ictx->wb_lock);
|
2024-05-31 15:48:29 +01:00
|
|
|
}
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Need the first folio to be able to set up the op. */
|
|
|
|
|
folio = writeback_iter(mapping, wbc, NULL, &error);
|
|
|
|
|
if (!folio)
|
|
|
|
|
goto out;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wreq = netfs_create_write_req(mapping, NULL, folio_pos(folio), NETFS_WRITEBACK);
|
|
|
|
|
if (IS_ERR(wreq)) {
|
|
|
|
|
error = PTR_ERR(wreq);
|
|
|
|
|
goto couldnt_start;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_write(wreq, netfs_write_trace_writeback);
|
2024-03-26 08:48:44 +00:00
|
|
|
netfs_stat(&netfs_n_wh_writepages);
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
do {
|
2024-06-06 07:48:55 +01:00
|
|
|
_debug("wbiter %lx %llx", folio->index, 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* It appears we don't have to handle cyclic writeback wrapping. */
|
2024-06-06 07:48:55 +01:00
|
|
|
WARN_ON_ONCE(wreq && folio_pos(folio) < 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (netfs_folio_group(folio) != NETFS_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE &&
|
|
|
|
|
unlikely(!test_bit(NETFS_RREQ_UPLOAD_TO_SERVER, &wreq->flags))) {
|
|
|
|
|
set_bit(NETFS_RREQ_UPLOAD_TO_SERVER, &wreq->flags);
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->netfs_ops->begin_writeback(wreq);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
error = netfs_write_folio(wreq, wbc, folio);
|
|
|
|
|
if (error < 0)
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
} while ((folio = writeback_iter(mapping, wbc, folio, &error)));
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-10-02 15:45:50 +01:00
|
|
|
netfs_end_issue_write(wreq);
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mutex_unlock(&ictx->wb_lock);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_put_request(wreq, false, netfs_rreq_trace_put_return);
|
2024-07-18 21:07:32 +01:00
|
|
|
_leave(" = %d", 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
|
|
|
return error;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
couldnt_start:
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_kill_dirty_pages(mapping, wbc, folio);
|
|
|
|
|
out:
|
|
|
|
|
mutex_unlock(&ictx->wb_lock);
|
2024-07-18 21:07:32 +01:00
|
|
|
_leave(" = %d", 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
|
|
|
return error;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2024-03-08 12:36:05 +00:00
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(netfs_writepages);
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Begin a write operation for writing through the pagecache.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2024-03-08 12:36:05 +00:00
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_request *netfs_begin_writethrough(struct kiocb *iocb, size_t 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
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_request *wreq = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_inode *ictx = netfs_inode(file_inode(iocb->ki_filp));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mutex_lock(&ictx->wb_lock);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wreq = netfs_create_write_req(iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping, iocb->ki_filp,
|
|
|
|
|
iocb->ki_pos, NETFS_WRITETHROUGH);
|
|
|
|
|
if (IS_ERR(wreq)) {
|
|
|
|
|
mutex_unlock(&ictx->wb_lock);
|
|
|
|
|
return wreq;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[0].avail = true;
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_write(wreq, netfs_write_trace_writethrough);
|
|
|
|
|
return wreq;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Advance the state of the write operation used when writing through the
|
|
|
|
|
* pagecache. Data has been copied into the pagecache that we need to append
|
|
|
|
|
* to the request. If we've added more than wsize then we need to create a new
|
|
|
|
|
* subrequest.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2024-03-08 12:36:05 +00:00
|
|
|
int netfs_advance_writethrough(struct netfs_io_request *wreq, struct writeback_control *wbc,
|
|
|
|
|
struct folio *folio, size_t copied, bool to_page_end,
|
|
|
|
|
struct folio **writethrough_cache)
|
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
|
|
|
{
|
2024-07-18 21:07:32 +01:00
|
|
|
_enter("R=%x ic=%zu ws=%u cp=%zu tp=%u",
|
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->debug_id, wreq->iter.count, wreq->wsize, copied, to_page_end);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!*writethrough_cache) {
|
|
|
|
|
if (folio_test_dirty(folio))
|
|
|
|
|
/* Sigh. mmap. */
|
|
|
|
|
folio_clear_dirty_for_io(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* We can make multiple writes to the folio... */
|
|
|
|
|
folio_start_writeback(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
if (wreq->len == 0)
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_wthru);
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_wthru_plus);
|
|
|
|
|
*writethrough_cache = folio;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->len += copied;
|
|
|
|
|
if (!to_page_end)
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*writethrough_cache = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
return netfs_write_folio(wreq, wbc, folio);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* End a write operation used when writing through the pagecache.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2024-03-08 12:36:05 +00:00
|
|
|
int netfs_end_writethrough(struct netfs_io_request *wreq, struct writeback_control *wbc,
|
|
|
|
|
struct folio *writethrough_cache)
|
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_inode *ictx = netfs_inode(wreq->inode);
|
|
|
|
|
int ret;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-18 21:07:32 +01:00
|
|
|
_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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (writethrough_cache)
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_write_folio(wreq, wbc, writethrough_cache);
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-10-02 15:45:50 +01:00
|
|
|
netfs_end_issue_write(wreq);
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mutex_unlock(&ictx->wb_lock);
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-05-21 14:36:27 +01:00
|
|
|
if (wreq->iocb) {
|
|
|
|
|
ret = -EIOCBQUEUED;
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
|
wait_on_bit(&wreq->flags, NETFS_RREQ_IN_PROGRESS, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
|
|
|
|
|
ret = wreq->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
|
|
|
netfs_put_request(wreq, false, netfs_rreq_trace_put_return);
|
|
|
|
|
return ret;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Write data to the server without going through the pagecache and without
|
|
|
|
|
* writing it to the local cache.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
int netfs_unbuffered_write(struct netfs_io_request *wreq, bool may_wait, size_t len)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_stream *upload = &wreq->io_streams[0];
|
|
|
|
|
ssize_t part;
|
|
|
|
|
loff_t start = wreq->start;
|
|
|
|
|
int error = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-18 21:07:32 +01:00
|
|
|
_enter("%zx", 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (wreq->origin == NETFS_DIO_WRITE)
|
|
|
|
|
inode_dio_begin(wreq->inode);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
while (len) {
|
|
|
|
|
// TODO: Prepare content encryption
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-18 21:07:32 +01:00
|
|
|
_debug("unbuffered %zx", 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
|
|
|
part = netfs_advance_write(wreq, upload, start, len, false);
|
|
|
|
|
start += part;
|
|
|
|
|
len -= part;
|
2024-06-06 07:48:55 +01:00
|
|
|
iov_iter_advance(&wreq->io_iter, part);
|
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 (test_bit(NETFS_RREQ_PAUSE, &wreq->flags)) {
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_rreq(wreq, netfs_rreq_trace_wait_pause);
|
|
|
|
|
wait_on_bit(&wreq->flags, NETFS_RREQ_PAUSE, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if (test_bit(NETFS_RREQ_FAILED, &wreq->flags))
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-10-02 15:45:50 +01:00
|
|
|
netfs_end_issue_write(wreq);
|
2024-07-18 21:07:32 +01:00
|
|
|
_leave(" = %d", 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
|
|
|
return error;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|