linux/fs/netfs/read_pgpriv2.c

233 lines
6.2 KiB
C
Raw Permalink Normal View History

// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
/* Read with PG_private_2 [DEPRECATED].
*
* 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"
/*
* [DEPRECATED] Copy a folio to the cache with PG_private_2 set.
*/
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_pgpriv2_copy_folio(struct netfs_io_request *creq, struct folio *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
struct netfs_io_stream *cache = &creq->io_streams[1];
size_t fsize = folio_size(folio), flen = fsize;
loff_t fpos = folio_pos(folio), i_size;
bool to_eof = false;
_enter("");
/* netfs_perform_write() may shift i_size around the page or from out
* of the page to beyond it, but cannot move i_size into or through the
* page since we have it locked.
*/
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
i_size = i_size_read(creq->inode);
if (fpos >= i_size) {
/* mmap beyond eof. */
_debug("beyond eof");
folio_end_private_2(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
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
if (fpos + fsize > creq->i_size)
creq->i_size = i_size;
if (flen > i_size - fpos) {
flen = i_size - fpos;
to_eof = true;
} else if (flen == i_size - fpos) {
to_eof = true;
}
_debug("folio %zx %zx", flen, fsize);
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_store_copy);
/* Attach the folio to the rolling buffer. */
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 (rolling_buffer_append(&creq->buffer, folio, 0) < 0) {
clear_bit(NETFS_RREQ_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE, &creq->flags);
return;
}
cachefiles, netfs: Fix write to partial block at EOF Because it uses DIO writes, cachefiles is unable to make a write to the backing file if that write is not aligned to and sized according to the backing file's DIO block alignment. This makes it tricky to handle a write to the cache where the EOF on the network file is not correctly aligned. To get around this, netfslib attempts to tell the driver it is calling how much more data there is available beyond the EOF that it can use to pad the write (netfslib preclears the part of the folio above the EOF). However, it tries to tell the cache what the maximum length is, but doesn't calculate this correctly; and, in any case, cachefiles actually ignores the value and just skips the block. Fix this by: (1) Change the value passed to indicate the amount of extra data that can be added to the operation (now ->submit_extendable_to). This is much simpler to calculate as it's just the end of the folio minus the top of the data within the folio - rather than having to account for data spread over multiple folios. (2) Make cachefiles add some of this data if the subrequest it is given ends at the network file's i_size if the extra data is sufficient to pad out to a whole block. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240814203850.2240469-22-dhowells@redhat.com/ # v2 Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2024-07-12 12:44:30 +01:00
cache->submit_extendable_to = fsize;
cache->submit_off = 0;
cache->submit_len = flen;
/* Attach the folio to one or more subrequests. For a big folio, we
* could end up with thousands of subrequests if the wsize is small -
* but we might need to wait during the creation of subrequests for
* network resources (eg. SMB credits).
*/
do {
ssize_t part;
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
creq->buffer.iter.iov_offset = cache->submit_off;
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
atomic64_set(&creq->issued_to, fpos + cache->submit_off);
cachefiles, netfs: Fix write to partial block at EOF Because it uses DIO writes, cachefiles is unable to make a write to the backing file if that write is not aligned to and sized according to the backing file's DIO block alignment. This makes it tricky to handle a write to the cache where the EOF on the network file is not correctly aligned. To get around this, netfslib attempts to tell the driver it is calling how much more data there is available beyond the EOF that it can use to pad the write (netfslib preclears the part of the folio above the EOF). However, it tries to tell the cache what the maximum length is, but doesn't calculate this correctly; and, in any case, cachefiles actually ignores the value and just skips the block. Fix this by: (1) Change the value passed to indicate the amount of extra data that can be added to the operation (now ->submit_extendable_to). This is much simpler to calculate as it's just the end of the folio minus the top of the data within the folio - rather than having to account for data spread over multiple folios. (2) Make cachefiles add some of this data if the subrequest it is given ends at the network file's i_size if the extra data is sufficient to pad out to a whole block. Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org> cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240814203850.2240469-22-dhowells@redhat.com/ # v2 Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2024-07-12 12:44:30 +01:00
cache->submit_extendable_to = fsize - cache->submit_off;
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
part = netfs_advance_write(creq, cache, fpos + cache->submit_off,
cache->submit_len, to_eof);
cache->submit_off += part;
if (part > cache->submit_len)
cache->submit_len = 0;
else
cache->submit_len -= part;
} while (cache->submit_len > 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
creq->buffer.iter.iov_offset = 0;
rolling_buffer_advance(&creq->buffer, fsize);
atomic64_set(&creq->issued_to, fpos + fsize);
if (flen < 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
netfs_issue_write(creq, cache);
}
/*
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
* [DEPRECATED] Set up copying to the cache.
*/
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 struct netfs_io_request *netfs_pgpriv2_begin_copy_to_cache(
struct netfs_io_request *rreq, struct folio *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
struct netfs_io_request *creq;
if (!fscache_resources_valid(&rreq->cache_resources))
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
goto cancel;
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
creq = netfs_create_write_req(rreq->mapping, NULL, folio_pos(folio),
NETFS_PGPRIV2_COPY_TO_CACHE);
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 (IS_ERR(creq))
goto cancel;
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 (!creq->io_streams[1].avail)
goto cancel_put;
__set_bit(NETFS_RREQ_OFFLOAD_COLLECTION, &creq->flags);
netfs: Fix race between cache write completion and ALL_QUEUED being set When netfslib is issuing subrequests, the subrequests start processing immediately and may complete before we reach the end of the issuing function. At the end of the issuing function we set NETFS_RREQ_ALL_QUEUED to indicate to the collector that we aren't going to issue any more subreqs and that it can do the final notifications and cleanup. Now, this isn't a problem if the request is synchronous (NETFS_RREQ_OFFLOAD_COLLECTION is unset) as the result collection will be done in-thread and we're guaranteed an opportunity to run the collector. However, if the request is asynchronous, collection is primarily triggered by the termination of subrequests queuing it on a workqueue. Now, a race can occur here if the app thread sets ALL_QUEUED after the last subrequest terminates. This can happen most easily with the copy2cache code (as used by Ceph) where, in the collection routine of a read request, an asynchronous write request is spawned to copy data to the cache. Folios are added to the write request as they're unlocked, but there may be a delay before ALL_QUEUED is set as the write subrequests may complete before we get there. If all the write subreqs have finished by the ALL_QUEUED point, no further events happen and the collection never happens, leaving the request hanging. Fix this by queuing the collector after setting ALL_QUEUED. This is a bit heavy-handed and it may be sufficient to do it only if there are no extant subreqs. Also add a tracepoint to cross-reference both requests in a copy-to-request operation and add a trace to the netfs_rreq tracepoint to indicate the setting of ALL_QUEUED. Fixes: e2d46f2ec332 ("netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item") Reported-by: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@ionos.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAKPOu+8z_ijTLHdiCYGU_Uk7yYD=shxyGLwfe-L7AV3DhebS3w@mail.gmail.com/ Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20250711151005.2956810-3-dhowells@redhat.com Reviewed-by: Paulo Alcantara (Red Hat) <pc@manguebit.org> cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.org> cc: Viacheslav Dubeyko <slava@dubeyko.com> cc: Alex Markuze <amarkuze@redhat.com> cc: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com> cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2025-07-11 16:10:01 +01:00
trace_netfs_copy2cache(rreq, creq);
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_write(creq, netfs_write_trace_copy_to_cache);
netfs_stat(&netfs_n_wh_copy_to_cache);
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->copy_to_cache = creq;
return creq;
cancel_put:
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_request(creq, netfs_rreq_trace_put_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
cancel:
rreq->copy_to_cache = ERR_PTR(-ENOBUFS);
clear_bit(NETFS_RREQ_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE, &rreq->flags);
return ERR_PTR(-ENOBUFS);
}
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
/*
* [DEPRECATED] Mark page as requiring copy-to-cache using PG_private_2 and add
* it to the copy write request.
*/
void netfs_pgpriv2_copy_to_cache(struct netfs_io_request *rreq, struct folio *folio)
{
struct netfs_io_request *creq = rreq->copy_to_cache;
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 (!creq)
creq = netfs_pgpriv2_begin_copy_to_cache(rreq, folio);
if (IS_ERR(creq))
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
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_copy_to_cache);
folio_start_private_2(folio);
netfs_pgpriv2_copy_folio(creq, folio);
}
/*
* [DEPRECATED] End writing to the cache, flushing out any outstanding writes.
*/
void netfs_pgpriv2_end_copy_to_cache(struct netfs_io_request *rreq)
{
struct netfs_io_request *creq = rreq->copy_to_cache;
if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(creq))
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
netfs_issue_write(creq, &creq->io_streams[1]);
smp_wmb(); /* Write lists before ALL_QUEUED. */
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_RREQ_ALL_QUEUED, &creq->flags);
netfs: Fix race between cache write completion and ALL_QUEUED being set When netfslib is issuing subrequests, the subrequests start processing immediately and may complete before we reach the end of the issuing function. At the end of the issuing function we set NETFS_RREQ_ALL_QUEUED to indicate to the collector that we aren't going to issue any more subreqs and that it can do the final notifications and cleanup. Now, this isn't a problem if the request is synchronous (NETFS_RREQ_OFFLOAD_COLLECTION is unset) as the result collection will be done in-thread and we're guaranteed an opportunity to run the collector. However, if the request is asynchronous, collection is primarily triggered by the termination of subrequests queuing it on a workqueue. Now, a race can occur here if the app thread sets ALL_QUEUED after the last subrequest terminates. This can happen most easily with the copy2cache code (as used by Ceph) where, in the collection routine of a read request, an asynchronous write request is spawned to copy data to the cache. Folios are added to the write request as they're unlocked, but there may be a delay before ALL_QUEUED is set as the write subrequests may complete before we get there. If all the write subreqs have finished by the ALL_QUEUED point, no further events happen and the collection never happens, leaving the request hanging. Fix this by queuing the collector after setting ALL_QUEUED. This is a bit heavy-handed and it may be sufficient to do it only if there are no extant subreqs. Also add a tracepoint to cross-reference both requests in a copy-to-request operation and add a trace to the netfs_rreq tracepoint to indicate the setting of ALL_QUEUED. Fixes: e2d46f2ec332 ("netfs: Change the read result collector to only use one work item") Reported-by: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@ionos.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/CAKPOu+8z_ijTLHdiCYGU_Uk7yYD=shxyGLwfe-L7AV3DhebS3w@mail.gmail.com/ Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/20250711151005.2956810-3-dhowells@redhat.com Reviewed-by: Paulo Alcantara (Red Hat) <pc@manguebit.org> cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.org> cc: Viacheslav Dubeyko <slava@dubeyko.com> cc: Alex Markuze <amarkuze@redhat.com> cc: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com> cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2025-07-11 16:10:01 +01:00
trace_netfs_rreq(rreq, netfs_rreq_trace_end_copy_to_cache);
if (list_empty_careful(&creq->io_streams[1].subrequests))
netfs_wake_collector(creq);
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_request(creq, netfs_rreq_trace_put_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
creq->copy_to_cache = NULL;
}
/*
* [DEPRECATED] Remove the PG_private_2 mark from any folios we've finished
* copying.
*/
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
bool netfs_pgpriv2_unlock_copied_folios(struct netfs_io_request *creq)
{
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 = creq->buffer.tail;
unsigned long long collected_to = creq->collected_to;
unsigned int slot = creq->buffer.first_tail_slot;
bool made_progress = false;
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(&creq->buffer);
slot = 0;
}
for (;;) {
struct folio *folio;
unsigned long long fpos, fend;
size_t fsize, flen;
folio = folioq_folio(folioq, slot);
if (WARN_ONCE(!folio_test_private_2(folio),
"R=%08x: folio %lx is not marked private_2\n",
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
creq->debug_id, folio->index))
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_not_under_wback);
fpos = folio_pos(folio);
fsize = folio_size(folio);
flen = 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
fend = min_t(unsigned long long, fpos + flen, creq->i_size);
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_folio(creq, folio, fend, collected_to);
/* Unlock any folio we've transferred all of. */
if (collected_to < fend)
break;
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_end_copy);
folio_end_private_2(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
creq->cleaned_to = fpos + fsize;
made_progress = true;
/* 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(&creq->buffer);
if (!folioq)
goto done;
slot = 0;
}
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
creq->buffer.tail = folioq;
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
creq->buffer.first_tail_slot = slot;
return made_progress;
}