linux/fs/netfs/read_collect.c

584 lines
18 KiB
C
Raw Permalink Normal View History

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
/* Network filesystem read subrequest result collection, assessment and
* retrying.
*
* Copyright (C) 2024 Red Hat, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
* Written by David Howells (dhowells@redhat.com)
*/
#include <linux/export.h>
#include <linux/fs.h>
#include <linux/mm.h>
#include <linux/pagemap.h>
#include <linux/slab.h>
#include <linux/task_io_accounting_ops.h>
#include "internal.h"
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
/* Notes made in the collector */
#define HIT_PENDING 0x01 /* A front op was still pending */
#define MADE_PROGRESS 0x04 /* Made progress cleaning up a stream or the folio set */
#define BUFFERED 0x08 /* The pagecache needs cleaning up */
#define NEED_RETRY 0x10 /* A front op requests retrying */
#define COPY_TO_CACHE 0x40 /* Need to copy subrequest to cache */
#define ABANDON_SREQ 0x80 /* Need to abandon untransferred part of subrequest */
/*
* Clear the unread part of an I/O request.
*/
static void netfs_clear_unread(struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq)
{
netfs_reset_iter(subreq);
WARN_ON_ONCE(subreq->len - subreq->transferred != iov_iter_count(&subreq->io_iter));
iov_iter_zero(iov_iter_count(&subreq->io_iter), &subreq->io_iter);
if (subreq->start + subreq->transferred >= subreq->rreq->i_size)
__set_bit(NETFS_SREQ_HIT_EOF, &subreq->flags);
}
/*
* Flush, mark and unlock a folio that's now completely read. If we want to
* cache the folio, we set the group to NETFS_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE, mark it
* dirty and let writeback handle it.
*/
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
static void netfs_unlock_read_folio(struct netfs_io_request *rreq,
struct folio_queue *folioq,
int slot)
{
struct netfs_folio *finfo;
struct folio *folio = folioq_folio(folioq, slot);
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
if (unlikely(folio_pos(folio) < rreq->abandon_to)) {
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_abandon);
goto just_unlock;
}
flush_dcache_folio(folio);
folio_mark_uptodate(folio);
if (!test_bit(NETFS_RREQ_USE_PGPRIV2, &rreq->flags)) {
finfo = netfs_folio_info(folio);
if (finfo) {
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_filled_gaps);
if (finfo->netfs_group)
folio_change_private(folio, finfo->netfs_group);
else
folio_detach_private(folio);
kfree(finfo);
}
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
if (test_bit(NETFS_RREQ_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE, &rreq->flags)) {
if (!WARN_ON_ONCE(folio_get_private(folio) != NULL)) {
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_copy_to_cache);
folio_attach_private(folio, NETFS_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE);
folio_mark_dirty(folio);
}
} else {
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_read_done);
}
netfs: Fix ceph copy to cache on write-begin At the end of netfs_unlock_read_folio() in which folios are marked appropriately for copying to the cache (either with by being marked dirty and having their private data set or by having PG_private_2 set) and then unlocked, the folio_queue struct has the entry pointing to the folio cleared. This presents a problem for netfs_pgpriv2_write_to_the_cache(), which is used to write folios marked with PG_private_2 to the cache as it expects to be able to trawl the folio_queue list thereafter to find the relevant folios, leading to a hang. Fix this by not clearing the folio_queue entry if we're going to do the deprecated copy-to-cache. The clearance will be done instead as the folios are written to the cache. This can be reproduced by starting cachefiles, mounting a ceph filesystem with "-o fsc" and writing to it. Fixes: 796a4049640b ("netfs: In readahead, put the folio refs as soon extracted") Reported-by: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@ionos.com> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAKPOu+_4m80thNy5_fvROoxBm689YtA0dZ-=gcmkzwYSY4syqw@mail.gmail.com/ Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241213135013.2964079-10-dhowells@redhat.com Fixes: ee4cdf7ba857 ("netfs: Speed up buffered reading") cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com> cc: Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com> cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2024-12-13 13:50:09 +00:00
folioq_clear(folioq, slot);
} else {
// TODO: Use of PG_private_2 is deprecated.
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
if (test_bit(NETFS_RREQ_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE, &rreq->flags))
netfs_pgpriv2_copy_to_cache(rreq, folio);
}
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
just_unlock:
if (folio->index == rreq->no_unlock_folio &&
test_bit(NETFS_RREQ_NO_UNLOCK_FOLIO, &rreq->flags)) {
_debug("no unlock");
} else {
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_read_unlock);
folio_unlock(folio);
}
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
folioq_clear(folioq, slot);
}
/*
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
* Unlock any folios we've finished with.
*/
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
static void netfs_read_unlock_folios(struct netfs_io_request *rreq,
unsigned int *notes)
{
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
struct folio_queue *folioq = rreq->buffer.tail;
unsigned long long collected_to = rreq->collected_to;
unsigned int slot = rreq->buffer.first_tail_slot;
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
if (rreq->cleaned_to >= rreq->collected_to)
return;
// TODO: Begin decryption
if (slot >= folioq_nr_slots(folioq)) {
folioq = rolling_buffer_delete_spent(&rreq->buffer);
if (!folioq) {
rreq->front_folio_order = 0;
return;
}
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
slot = 0;
}
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
for (;;) {
struct folio *folio;
unsigned long long fpos, fend;
unsigned int order;
size_t fsize;
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
if (*notes & COPY_TO_CACHE)
set_bit(NETFS_RREQ_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE, &rreq->flags);
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
folio = folioq_folio(folioq, slot);
if (WARN_ONCE(!folio_test_locked(folio),
"R=%08x: folio %lx is not locked\n",
rreq->debug_id, folio->index))
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_not_locked);
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
order = folioq_folio_order(folioq, slot);
rreq->front_folio_order = order;
fsize = PAGE_SIZE << order;
fpos = folio_pos(folio);
fend = umin(fpos + fsize, rreq->i_size);
trace_netfs_collect_folio(rreq, folio, fend, collected_to);
/* Unlock any folio we've transferred all of. */
if (collected_to < fend)
break;
netfs_unlock_read_folio(rreq, folioq, slot);
WRITE_ONCE(rreq->cleaned_to, fpos + fsize);
*notes |= MADE_PROGRESS;
clear_bit(NETFS_RREQ_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE, &rreq->flags);
/* Clean up the head folioq. If we clear an entire folioq, then
* we can get rid of it provided it's not also the tail folioq
* being filled by the issuer.
*/
folioq_clear(folioq, slot);
slot++;
if (slot >= folioq_nr_slots(folioq)) {
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
folioq = rolling_buffer_delete_spent(&rreq->buffer);
if (!folioq)
goto done;
slot = 0;
trace_netfs_folioq(folioq, netfs_trace_folioq_read_progress);
}
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
if (fpos + fsize >= collected_to)
break;
}
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
rreq->buffer.tail = folioq;
done:
rreq->buffer.first_tail_slot = slot;
}
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
/*
* Collect and assess the results of various read subrequests. We may need to
* retry some of the results.
*
* Note that we have a sequence of subrequests, which may be drawing on
* different sources and may or may not be the same size or starting position
* and may not even correspond in boundary alignment.
*/
static void netfs_collect_read_results(struct netfs_io_request *rreq)
{
struct netfs_io_subrequest *front, *remove;
struct netfs_io_stream *stream = &rreq->io_streams[0];
unsigned int notes;
_enter("%llx-%llx", rreq->start, rreq->start + rreq->len);
trace_netfs_rreq(rreq, netfs_rreq_trace_collect);
trace_netfs_collect(rreq);
reassess:
if (rreq->origin == NETFS_READAHEAD ||
rreq->origin == NETFS_READPAGE ||
rreq->origin == NETFS_READ_FOR_WRITE)
notes = BUFFERED;
else
notes = 0;
/* Remove completed subrequests from the front of the stream and
* advance the completion point. We stop when we hit something that's
* in progress. The issuer thread may be adding stuff to the tail
* whilst we're doing this.
*/
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
front = READ_ONCE(stream->front);
while (front) {
size_t transferred;
trace_netfs_collect_sreq(rreq, front);
_debug("sreq [%x] %llx %zx/%zx",
front->debug_index, front->start, front->transferred, front->len);
if (stream->collected_to < front->start) {
trace_netfs_collect_gap(rreq, stream, front->start, 'F');
stream->collected_to = front->start;
}
if (netfs_check_subreq_in_progress(front))
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
notes |= HIT_PENDING;
smp_rmb(); /* Read counters after IN_PROGRESS flag. */
transferred = READ_ONCE(front->transferred);
/* If we can now collect the next folio, do so. We don't want
* to defer this as we have to decide whether we need to copy
* to the cache or not, and that may differ between adjacent
* subreqs.
*/
if (notes & BUFFERED) {
size_t fsize = PAGE_SIZE << rreq->front_folio_order;
/* Clear the tail of a short read. */
if (!(notes & HIT_PENDING) &&
front->error == 0 &&
transferred < front->len &&
(test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_HIT_EOF, &front->flags) ||
test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_CLEAR_TAIL, &front->flags))) {
netfs_clear_unread(front);
transferred = front->transferred = front->len;
trace_netfs_sreq(front, netfs_sreq_trace_clear);
}
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
stream->collected_to = front->start + transferred;
rreq->collected_to = stream->collected_to;
if (test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_COPY_TO_CACHE, &front->flags))
notes |= COPY_TO_CACHE;
if (test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_FAILED, &front->flags)) {
rreq->abandon_to = front->start + front->len;
front->transferred = front->len;
transferred = front->len;
trace_netfs_rreq(rreq, netfs_rreq_trace_set_abandon);
}
if (front->start + transferred >= rreq->cleaned_to + fsize ||
test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_HIT_EOF, &front->flags))
netfs_read_unlock_folios(rreq, &notes);
} else {
stream->collected_to = front->start + transferred;
rreq->collected_to = stream->collected_to;
}
/* Stall if the front is still undergoing I/O. */
if (notes & HIT_PENDING)
break;
if (test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_FAILED, &front->flags)) {
if (!stream->failed) {
stream->error = front->error;
rreq->error = front->error;
set_bit(NETFS_RREQ_FAILED, &rreq->flags);
stream->failed = true;
}
notes |= MADE_PROGRESS | ABANDON_SREQ;
} else if (test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_NEED_RETRY, &front->flags)) {
stream->need_retry = true;
notes |= NEED_RETRY | MADE_PROGRESS;
break;
netfs: Fix setting of transferred bytes with short DIO reads A netfslib request comprises an ordered stream of subrequests that, when doing an unbuffered/DIO read, are contiguous. The subrequests may be performed in parallel, but may not be fully completed. For instance, if we try and make a 256KiB DIO read from a 3-byte file with a 64KiB rsize and 256KiB bsize, netfslib will attempt to make a read of 256KiB, broken up into four 64KiB subreads, with the expectation that the first will be short and the subsequent three be completely devoid - but we do all four on the basis that the file may have been changed by a third party. The read-collection code, however, walks through all the subreqs and advances the notion of how much data has been read in the stream to the start of each subreq plus its amount transferred (which are 3, 0, 0, 0 for the example above) - which gives an amount apparently read of 3*64KiB - which is incorrect. Fix the collection code to cut short the calculation of the transferred amount with the first short subrequest in an unbuffered read; everything beyond that must be ignored as there's a hole that cannot be filled. This applies both to shortness due to hitting the EOF and shortness due to an error. This is achieved by setting a flag on the request when we collect the first short subrequest (collection is done in ascending order). This can be tested by mounting a cifs volume with rsize=65536,bsize=262144 and doing a 256k DIO read of a very small file (e.g. 3 bytes). read() should return 3, not >3. This problem came in when netfs_read_collection() set rreq->transferred to stream->transferred, even for DIO. Prior to that, netfs_rreq_assess_dio() just went over the list and added up the subreqs till it met a short one - but now the subreqs are discarded earlier. Fixes: e2d46f2ec332 ("netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item") Reported-by: Nicolas Baranger <nicolas.baranger@3xo.fr> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/10bec2430ed4df68bde10ed95295d093@3xo.fr/ Signed-off-by: "Paulo Alcantara (Red Hat)" <pc@manguebit.com> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20250519090707.2848510-3-dhowells@redhat.com cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2025-05-19 10:07:02 +01:00
} else if (test_bit(NETFS_RREQ_SHORT_TRANSFER, &rreq->flags)) {
notes |= MADE_PROGRESS;
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
} else {
if (!stream->failed)
netfs: Fix setting of transferred bytes with short DIO reads A netfslib request comprises an ordered stream of subrequests that, when doing an unbuffered/DIO read, are contiguous. The subrequests may be performed in parallel, but may not be fully completed. For instance, if we try and make a 256KiB DIO read from a 3-byte file with a 64KiB rsize and 256KiB bsize, netfslib will attempt to make a read of 256KiB, broken up into four 64KiB subreads, with the expectation that the first will be short and the subsequent three be completely devoid - but we do all four on the basis that the file may have been changed by a third party. The read-collection code, however, walks through all the subreqs and advances the notion of how much data has been read in the stream to the start of each subreq plus its amount transferred (which are 3, 0, 0, 0 for the example above) - which gives an amount apparently read of 3*64KiB - which is incorrect. Fix the collection code to cut short the calculation of the transferred amount with the first short subrequest in an unbuffered read; everything beyond that must be ignored as there's a hole that cannot be filled. This applies both to shortness due to hitting the EOF and shortness due to an error. This is achieved by setting a flag on the request when we collect the first short subrequest (collection is done in ascending order). This can be tested by mounting a cifs volume with rsize=65536,bsize=262144 and doing a 256k DIO read of a very small file (e.g. 3 bytes). read() should return 3, not >3. This problem came in when netfs_read_collection() set rreq->transferred to stream->transferred, even for DIO. Prior to that, netfs_rreq_assess_dio() just went over the list and added up the subreqs till it met a short one - but now the subreqs are discarded earlier. Fixes: e2d46f2ec332 ("netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item") Reported-by: Nicolas Baranger <nicolas.baranger@3xo.fr> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/10bec2430ed4df68bde10ed95295d093@3xo.fr/ Signed-off-by: "Paulo Alcantara (Red Hat)" <pc@manguebit.com> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20250519090707.2848510-3-dhowells@redhat.com cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2025-05-19 10:07:02 +01:00
stream->transferred += transferred;
if (front->transferred < front->len)
set_bit(NETFS_RREQ_SHORT_TRANSFER, &rreq->flags);
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
notes |= MADE_PROGRESS;
}
/* Remove if completely consumed. */
stream->source = front->source;
spin_lock(&rreq->lock);
remove = front;
trace_netfs_sreq(front,
notes & ABANDON_SREQ ?
netfs_sreq_trace_abandoned : netfs_sreq_trace_consumed);
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
list_del_init(&front->rreq_link);
front = list_first_entry_or_null(&stream->subrequests,
struct netfs_io_subrequest, rreq_link);
stream->front = front;
spin_unlock(&rreq->lock);
netfs: Fix the request's work item to not require a ref When the netfs_io_request struct's work item is queued, it must be supplied with a ref to the work item struct to prevent it being deallocated whilst on the queue or whilst it is being processed. This is tricky to manage as we have to get a ref before we try and queue it and then we may find it's already queued and is thus already holding a ref - in which case we have to try and get rid of the ref again. The problem comes if we're in BH or IRQ context and need to drop the ref: if netfs_put_request() reduces the count to 0, we have to do the cleanup - but the cleanup may need to wait. Fix this by adding a new work item to the request, ->cleanup_work, and dispatching that when the refcount hits zero. That can then synchronously cancel any outstanding work on the main work item before doing the cleanup. Adding a new work item also deals with another problem upstream where it's sometimes changing the work func in the put function and requeuing it - which has occasionally in the past caused the cleanup to happen incorrectly. As a bonus, this allows us to get rid of the 'was_async' parameter from a bunch of functions. This indicated whether the put function might not be permitted to sleep. Fixes: 3d3c95046742 ("netfs: Provide readahead and readpage netfs helpers") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20250519090707.2848510-4-dhowells@redhat.com cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com> cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2025-05-19 10:07:03 +01:00
netfs_put_subrequest(remove,
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
notes & ABANDON_SREQ ?
netfs_sreq_trace_put_abandon :
netfs_sreq_trace_put_done);
}
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
trace_netfs_collect_stream(rreq, stream);
trace_netfs_collect_state(rreq, rreq->collected_to, notes);
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
if (!(notes & BUFFERED))
rreq->cleaned_to = rreq->collected_to;
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
if (notes & NEED_RETRY)
goto need_retry;
if (notes & MADE_PROGRESS) {
netfs_wake_rreq_flag(rreq, NETFS_RREQ_PAUSE, netfs_rreq_trace_unpause);
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
//cond_resched();
goto reassess;
}
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
out:
_leave(" = %x", notes);
return;
need_retry:
/* Okay... We're going to have to retry parts of the stream. Note
* that any partially completed op will have had any wholly transferred
* folios removed from it.
*/
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
_debug("retry");
netfs_retry_reads(rreq);
goto out;
}
/*
* Do page flushing and suchlike after DIO.
*/
static void netfs_rreq_assess_dio(struct netfs_io_request *rreq)
{
unsigned int i;
if (rreq->origin == NETFS_UNBUFFERED_READ ||
rreq->origin == NETFS_DIO_READ) {
for (i = 0; i < rreq->direct_bv_count; i++) {
flush_dcache_page(rreq->direct_bv[i].bv_page);
// TODO: cifs marks pages in the destination buffer
// dirty under some circumstances after a read. Do we
// need to do that too?
set_page_dirty(rreq->direct_bv[i].bv_page);
}
}
if (rreq->iocb) {
rreq->iocb->ki_pos += rreq->transferred;
if (rreq->iocb->ki_complete) {
trace_netfs_rreq(rreq, netfs_rreq_trace_ki_complete);
rreq->iocb->ki_complete(
rreq->iocb, rreq->error ? rreq->error : rreq->transferred);
}
}
if (rreq->netfs_ops->done)
rreq->netfs_ops->done(rreq);
if (rreq->origin == NETFS_UNBUFFERED_READ ||
rreq->origin == NETFS_DIO_READ)
inode_dio_end(rreq->inode);
}
/*
* Do processing after reading a monolithic single object.
*/
static void netfs_rreq_assess_single(struct netfs_io_request *rreq)
{
struct netfs_io_stream *stream = &rreq->io_streams[0];
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
if (!rreq->error && stream->source == NETFS_DOWNLOAD_FROM_SERVER &&
fscache_resources_valid(&rreq->cache_resources)) {
trace_netfs_rreq(rreq, netfs_rreq_trace_dirty);
netfs_single_mark_inode_dirty(rreq->inode);
}
if (rreq->iocb) {
rreq->iocb->ki_pos += rreq->transferred;
if (rreq->iocb->ki_complete) {
trace_netfs_rreq(rreq, netfs_rreq_trace_ki_complete);
rreq->iocb->ki_complete(
rreq->iocb, rreq->error ? rreq->error : rreq->transferred);
}
}
if (rreq->netfs_ops->done)
rreq->netfs_ops->done(rreq);
}
/*
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
* Perform the collection of subrequests and folios.
*
* Note that we're in normal kernel thread context at this point, possibly
* running on a workqueue.
*/
bool netfs_read_collection(struct netfs_io_request *rreq)
{
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
struct netfs_io_stream *stream = &rreq->io_streams[0];
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
netfs_collect_read_results(rreq);
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
/* We're done when the app thread has finished posting subreqs and the
* queue is empty.
*/
if (!test_bit(NETFS_RREQ_ALL_QUEUED, &rreq->flags))
netfs: Fix the request's work item to not require a ref When the netfs_io_request struct's work item is queued, it must be supplied with a ref to the work item struct to prevent it being deallocated whilst on the queue or whilst it is being processed. This is tricky to manage as we have to get a ref before we try and queue it and then we may find it's already queued and is thus already holding a ref - in which case we have to try and get rid of the ref again. The problem comes if we're in BH or IRQ context and need to drop the ref: if netfs_put_request() reduces the count to 0, we have to do the cleanup - but the cleanup may need to wait. Fix this by adding a new work item to the request, ->cleanup_work, and dispatching that when the refcount hits zero. That can then synchronously cancel any outstanding work on the main work item before doing the cleanup. Adding a new work item also deals with another problem upstream where it's sometimes changing the work func in the put function and requeuing it - which has occasionally in the past caused the cleanup to happen incorrectly. As a bonus, this allows us to get rid of the 'was_async' parameter from a bunch of functions. This indicated whether the put function might not be permitted to sleep. Fixes: 3d3c95046742 ("netfs: Provide readahead and readpage netfs helpers") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20250519090707.2848510-4-dhowells@redhat.com cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com> cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2025-05-19 10:07:03 +01:00
return false;
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
smp_rmb(); /* Read ALL_QUEUED before subreq lists. */
if (!list_empty(&stream->subrequests))
netfs: Fix the request's work item to not require a ref When the netfs_io_request struct's work item is queued, it must be supplied with a ref to the work item struct to prevent it being deallocated whilst on the queue or whilst it is being processed. This is tricky to manage as we have to get a ref before we try and queue it and then we may find it's already queued and is thus already holding a ref - in which case we have to try and get rid of the ref again. The problem comes if we're in BH or IRQ context and need to drop the ref: if netfs_put_request() reduces the count to 0, we have to do the cleanup - but the cleanup may need to wait. Fix this by adding a new work item to the request, ->cleanup_work, and dispatching that when the refcount hits zero. That can then synchronously cancel any outstanding work on the main work item before doing the cleanup. Adding a new work item also deals with another problem upstream where it's sometimes changing the work func in the put function and requeuing it - which has occasionally in the past caused the cleanup to happen incorrectly. As a bonus, this allows us to get rid of the 'was_async' parameter from a bunch of functions. This indicated whether the put function might not be permitted to sleep. Fixes: 3d3c95046742 ("netfs: Provide readahead and readpage netfs helpers") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20250519090707.2848510-4-dhowells@redhat.com cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com> cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2025-05-19 10:07:03 +01:00
return false;
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
/* Okay, declare that all I/O is complete. */
rreq->transferred = stream->transferred;
trace_netfs_rreq(rreq, netfs_rreq_trace_complete);
//netfs_rreq_is_still_valid(rreq);
switch (rreq->origin) {
case NETFS_UNBUFFERED_READ:
case NETFS_DIO_READ:
case NETFS_READ_GAPS:
netfs_rreq_assess_dio(rreq);
break;
case NETFS_READ_SINGLE:
netfs_rreq_assess_single(rreq);
break;
default:
break;
}
task_io_account_read(rreq->transferred);
netfs_wake_rreq_flag(rreq, NETFS_RREQ_IN_PROGRESS, netfs_rreq_trace_wake_ip);
netfs: Fix the request's work item to not require a ref When the netfs_io_request struct's work item is queued, it must be supplied with a ref to the work item struct to prevent it being deallocated whilst on the queue or whilst it is being processed. This is tricky to manage as we have to get a ref before we try and queue it and then we may find it's already queued and is thus already holding a ref - in which case we have to try and get rid of the ref again. The problem comes if we're in BH or IRQ context and need to drop the ref: if netfs_put_request() reduces the count to 0, we have to do the cleanup - but the cleanup may need to wait. Fix this by adding a new work item to the request, ->cleanup_work, and dispatching that when the refcount hits zero. That can then synchronously cancel any outstanding work on the main work item before doing the cleanup. Adding a new work item also deals with another problem upstream where it's sometimes changing the work func in the put function and requeuing it - which has occasionally in the past caused the cleanup to happen incorrectly. As a bonus, this allows us to get rid of the 'was_async' parameter from a bunch of functions. This indicated whether the put function might not be permitted to sleep. Fixes: 3d3c95046742 ("netfs: Provide readahead and readpage netfs helpers") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20250519090707.2848510-4-dhowells@redhat.com cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com> cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2025-05-19 10:07:03 +01:00
/* As we cleared NETFS_RREQ_IN_PROGRESS, we acquired its ref. */
trace_netfs_rreq(rreq, netfs_rreq_trace_done);
netfs: Fix the request's work item to not require a ref When the netfs_io_request struct's work item is queued, it must be supplied with a ref to the work item struct to prevent it being deallocated whilst on the queue or whilst it is being processed. This is tricky to manage as we have to get a ref before we try and queue it and then we may find it's already queued and is thus already holding a ref - in which case we have to try and get rid of the ref again. The problem comes if we're in BH or IRQ context and need to drop the ref: if netfs_put_request() reduces the count to 0, we have to do the cleanup - but the cleanup may need to wait. Fix this by adding a new work item to the request, ->cleanup_work, and dispatching that when the refcount hits zero. That can then synchronously cancel any outstanding work on the main work item before doing the cleanup. Adding a new work item also deals with another problem upstream where it's sometimes changing the work func in the put function and requeuing it - which has occasionally in the past caused the cleanup to happen incorrectly. As a bonus, this allows us to get rid of the 'was_async' parameter from a bunch of functions. This indicated whether the put function might not be permitted to sleep. Fixes: 3d3c95046742 ("netfs: Provide readahead and readpage netfs helpers") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20250519090707.2848510-4-dhowells@redhat.com cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com> cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2025-05-19 10:07:03 +01:00
netfs_clear_subrequests(rreq);
netfs_unlock_abandoned_read_pages(rreq);
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
if (unlikely(rreq->copy_to_cache))
netfs_pgpriv2_end_copy_to_cache(rreq);
netfs: Fix the request's work item to not require a ref When the netfs_io_request struct's work item is queued, it must be supplied with a ref to the work item struct to prevent it being deallocated whilst on the queue or whilst it is being processed. This is tricky to manage as we have to get a ref before we try and queue it and then we may find it's already queued and is thus already holding a ref - in which case we have to try and get rid of the ref again. The problem comes if we're in BH or IRQ context and need to drop the ref: if netfs_put_request() reduces the count to 0, we have to do the cleanup - but the cleanup may need to wait. Fix this by adding a new work item to the request, ->cleanup_work, and dispatching that when the refcount hits zero. That can then synchronously cancel any outstanding work on the main work item before doing the cleanup. Adding a new work item also deals with another problem upstream where it's sometimes changing the work func in the put function and requeuing it - which has occasionally in the past caused the cleanup to happen incorrectly. As a bonus, this allows us to get rid of the 'was_async' parameter from a bunch of functions. This indicated whether the put function might not be permitted to sleep. Fixes: 3d3c95046742 ("netfs: Provide readahead and readpage netfs helpers") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20250519090707.2848510-4-dhowells@redhat.com cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com> cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2025-05-19 10:07:03 +01:00
return true;
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
}
void netfs_read_collection_worker(struct work_struct *work)
{
struct netfs_io_request *rreq = container_of(work, struct netfs_io_request, work);
netfs_see_request(rreq, netfs_rreq_trace_see_work);
if (netfs_check_rreq_in_progress(rreq)) {
netfs: Fix the request's work item to not require a ref When the netfs_io_request struct's work item is queued, it must be supplied with a ref to the work item struct to prevent it being deallocated whilst on the queue or whilst it is being processed. This is tricky to manage as we have to get a ref before we try and queue it and then we may find it's already queued and is thus already holding a ref - in which case we have to try and get rid of the ref again. The problem comes if we're in BH or IRQ context and need to drop the ref: if netfs_put_request() reduces the count to 0, we have to do the cleanup - but the cleanup may need to wait. Fix this by adding a new work item to the request, ->cleanup_work, and dispatching that when the refcount hits zero. That can then synchronously cancel any outstanding work on the main work item before doing the cleanup. Adding a new work item also deals with another problem upstream where it's sometimes changing the work func in the put function and requeuing it - which has occasionally in the past caused the cleanup to happen incorrectly. As a bonus, this allows us to get rid of the 'was_async' parameter from a bunch of functions. This indicated whether the put function might not be permitted to sleep. Fixes: 3d3c95046742 ("netfs: Provide readahead and readpage netfs helpers") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20250519090707.2848510-4-dhowells@redhat.com cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com> cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2025-05-19 10:07:03 +01:00
if (netfs_read_collection(rreq))
/* Drop the ref from the IN_PROGRESS flag. */
netfs_put_request(rreq, netfs_rreq_trace_put_work_ip);
else
netfs_see_request(rreq, netfs_rreq_trace_see_work_complete);
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
}
}
/**
* netfs_read_subreq_progress - Note progress of a read operation.
* @subreq: The read request that has terminated.
*
* This tells the read side of netfs lib that a contributory I/O operation has
* made some progress and that it may be possible to unlock some folios.
*
* Before calling, the filesystem should update subreq->transferred to track
* the amount of data copied into the output buffer.
*/
void netfs_read_subreq_progress(struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq)
{
struct netfs_io_request *rreq = subreq->rreq;
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
struct netfs_io_stream *stream = &rreq->io_streams[0];
size_t fsize = PAGE_SIZE << rreq->front_folio_order;
trace_netfs_sreq(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_progress);
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
/* If we are at the head of the queue, wake up the collector,
* getting a ref to it if we were the ones to do so.
*/
if (subreq->start + subreq->transferred > rreq->cleaned_to + fsize &&
(rreq->origin == NETFS_READAHEAD ||
rreq->origin == NETFS_READPAGE ||
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
rreq->origin == NETFS_READ_FOR_WRITE) &&
list_is_first(&subreq->rreq_link, &stream->subrequests)
) {
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
__set_bit(NETFS_SREQ_MADE_PROGRESS, &subreq->flags);
netfs_wake_collector(rreq);
}
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(netfs_read_subreq_progress);
/**
* netfs_read_subreq_terminated - Note the termination of an I/O operation.
* @subreq: The I/O request that has terminated.
*
* This tells the read helper that a contributory I/O operation has terminated,
* one way or another, and that it should integrate the results.
*
* The caller indicates the outcome of the operation through @subreq->error,
* supplying 0 to indicate a successful or retryable transfer (if
* NETFS_SREQ_NEED_RETRY is set) or a negative error code. The helper will
* look after reissuing I/O operations as appropriate and writing downloaded
* data to the cache.
*
* Before calling, the filesystem should update subreq->transferred to track
* the amount of data copied into the output buffer.
*/
void netfs_read_subreq_terminated(struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq)
{
struct netfs_io_request *rreq = subreq->rreq;
switch (subreq->source) {
case NETFS_READ_FROM_CACHE:
netfs_stat(&netfs_n_rh_read_done);
break;
case NETFS_DOWNLOAD_FROM_SERVER:
netfs_stat(&netfs_n_rh_download_done);
break;
default:
break;
}
/* Deal with retry requests, short reads and errors. If we retry
* but don't make progress, we abandon the attempt.
*/
if (!subreq->error && subreq->transferred < subreq->len) {
if (test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_HIT_EOF, &subreq->flags)) {
trace_netfs_sreq(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_hit_eof);
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
} else if (test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_CLEAR_TAIL, &subreq->flags)) {
trace_netfs_sreq(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_need_clear);
} else if (test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_NEED_RETRY, &subreq->flags)) {
trace_netfs_sreq(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_need_retry);
} else if (test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_MADE_PROGRESS, &subreq->flags)) {
__set_bit(NETFS_SREQ_NEED_RETRY, &subreq->flags);
trace_netfs_sreq(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_partial_read);
} else {
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
__set_bit(NETFS_SREQ_FAILED, &subreq->flags);
subreq->error = -ENODATA;
trace_netfs_sreq(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_short);
}
}
if (unlikely(subreq->error < 0)) {
trace_netfs_failure(rreq, subreq, subreq->error, netfs_fail_read);
if (subreq->source == NETFS_READ_FROM_CACHE) {
netfs_stat(&netfs_n_rh_read_failed);
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
__set_bit(NETFS_SREQ_NEED_RETRY, &subreq->flags);
} else {
netfs_stat(&netfs_n_rh_download_failed);
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
__set_bit(NETFS_SREQ_FAILED, &subreq->flags);
}
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
trace_netfs_rreq(rreq, netfs_rreq_trace_set_pause);
set_bit(NETFS_RREQ_PAUSE, &rreq->flags);
}
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
trace_netfs_sreq(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_terminated);
netfs_subreq_clear_in_progress(subreq);
netfs: Fix the request's work item to not require a ref When the netfs_io_request struct's work item is queued, it must be supplied with a ref to the work item struct to prevent it being deallocated whilst on the queue or whilst it is being processed. This is tricky to manage as we have to get a ref before we try and queue it and then we may find it's already queued and is thus already holding a ref - in which case we have to try and get rid of the ref again. The problem comes if we're in BH or IRQ context and need to drop the ref: if netfs_put_request() reduces the count to 0, we have to do the cleanup - but the cleanup may need to wait. Fix this by adding a new work item to the request, ->cleanup_work, and dispatching that when the refcount hits zero. That can then synchronously cancel any outstanding work on the main work item before doing the cleanup. Adding a new work item also deals with another problem upstream where it's sometimes changing the work func in the put function and requeuing it - which has occasionally in the past caused the cleanup to happen incorrectly. As a bonus, this allows us to get rid of the 'was_async' parameter from a bunch of functions. This indicated whether the put function might not be permitted to sleep. Fixes: 3d3c95046742 ("netfs: Provide readahead and readpage netfs helpers") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20250519090707.2848510-4-dhowells@redhat.com cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com> cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2025-05-19 10:07:03 +01:00
netfs_put_subrequest(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_put_terminated);
}
EXPORT_SYMBOL(netfs_read_subreq_terminated);
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
/*
* Handle termination of a read from the cache.
*/
netfs: Fix the request's work item to not require a ref When the netfs_io_request struct's work item is queued, it must be supplied with a ref to the work item struct to prevent it being deallocated whilst on the queue or whilst it is being processed. This is tricky to manage as we have to get a ref before we try and queue it and then we may find it's already queued and is thus already holding a ref - in which case we have to try and get rid of the ref again. The problem comes if we're in BH or IRQ context and need to drop the ref: if netfs_put_request() reduces the count to 0, we have to do the cleanup - but the cleanup may need to wait. Fix this by adding a new work item to the request, ->cleanup_work, and dispatching that when the refcount hits zero. That can then synchronously cancel any outstanding work on the main work item before doing the cleanup. Adding a new work item also deals with another problem upstream where it's sometimes changing the work func in the put function and requeuing it - which has occasionally in the past caused the cleanup to happen incorrectly. As a bonus, this allows us to get rid of the 'was_async' parameter from a bunch of functions. This indicated whether the put function might not be permitted to sleep. Fixes: 3d3c95046742 ("netfs: Provide readahead and readpage netfs helpers") Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20250519090707.2848510-4-dhowells@redhat.com cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com> cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com> cc: Steve French <stfrench@microsoft.com> cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2025-05-19 10:07:03 +01:00
void netfs_cache_read_terminated(void *priv, ssize_t transferred_or_error)
{
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq = priv;
netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item Change the way netfslib collects read results to do all the collection for a particular read request using a single work item that walks along the subrequest queue as subrequests make progress or complete, unlocking folios progressively rather than doing the unlock in parallel as parallel requests come in. The code is remodelled to be more like the write-side code, though only using a single stream. This makes it more directly comparable and thus easier to duplicate fixes between the two sides. This has a number of advantages: (1) It's simpler. There doesn't need to be a complex donation mechanism to handle mismatches between the size and alignment of subrequests and folios. The collector unlocks folios as the subrequests covering each complete. (2) It should cause less scheduler overhead as there's a single work item in play unlocking pages in parallel when a read gets split up into a lot of subrequests instead of one per subrequest. Whilst the parallellism is nice in theory, in practice, the vast majority of loads are sequential reads of the whole file, so committing a bunch of threads to unlocking folios out of order doesn't help in those cases. (3) It should make it easier to implement content decryption. A folio cannot be decrypted until all the requests that contribute to it have completed - and, again, most loads are sequential and so, most of the time, we want to begin decryption sequentially (though it's great if the decryption can happen in parallel). There is a disadvantage in that we're losing the ability to decrypt and unlock things on an as-things-arrive basis which may affect some applications. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20241216204124.3752367-28-dhowells@redhat.com 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>
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
if (transferred_or_error > 0) {
subreq->error = 0;
if (transferred_or_error > 0) {
subreq->transferred += transferred_or_error;
__set_bit(NETFS_SREQ_MADE_PROGRESS, &subreq->flags);
}
} else {
subreq->error = transferred_or_error;
}
netfs_read_subreq_terminated(subreq);
}