2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: Implement unbuffered/DIO read support
Implement support for unbuffered and DIO reads in the netfs library,
utilising the existing read helper code to do block splitting and
individual queuing. The code also handles extraction of the destination
buffer from the supplied iterator, allowing async unbuffered reads to take
place.
The read will be split up according to the rsize setting and, if supplied,
the ->clamp_length() method. Note that the next subrequest will be issued
as soon as issue_op returns, without waiting for previous ones to finish.
The network filesystem needs to pause or handle queuing them if it doesn't
want to fire them all at the server simultaneously.
Once all the subrequests have finished, the state will be assessed and the
amount of data to be indicated as having being obtained will be
determined. As the subrequests may finish in any order, if an intermediate
subrequest is short, any further subrequests may be copied into the buffer
and then abandoned.
In the future, this will also take care of doing an unbuffered read from
encrypted content, with the decryption being done by the library.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: linux-cachefs@redhat.com
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
2022-01-14 17:39:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-09-22 11:06:07 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:41:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-17 13:09:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-22 11:06:07 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-29 22:31:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: Replace PG_fscache by setting folio->private and marking dirty
When dirty data is being written to the cache, setting/waiting on/clearing
the fscache flag is always done in tandem with setting/waiting on/clearing
the writeback flag. The netfslib buffered write routines wait on and set
both flags and the write request cleanup clears both flags, so the fscache
flag is almost superfluous.
The reason it isn't superfluous is because the fscache flag is also used to
indicate that data just read from the server is being written to the cache.
The flag is used to prevent a race involving overlapping direct-I/O writes
to the cache.
Change this to indicate that a page is in need of being copied to the cache
by placing a magic value in folio->private and marking the folios dirty.
Then when the writeback code sees a folio marked in this way, it only
writes it to the cache and not to the server.
If a folio that has this magic value set is modified, the value is just
replaced and the folio will then be uplodaded too.
With this, PG_fscache is no longer required by the netfslib core, 9p and
afs.
Ceph and nfs, however, still need to use the old PG_fscache-based tracking.
To deal with this, a flag, NETFS_ICTX_USE_PGPRIV2, now has to be set on the
flags in the netfs_inode struct for those filesystems. This reenables the
use of PG_fscache in that inode. 9p and afs use the netfslib write helpers
so get switched over; cifs, for the moment, does page-by-page manual access
to the cache, so doesn't use PG_fscache and is unaffected.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
cc: Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>
cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
cc: Bharath SM <bharathsm@microsoft.com>
cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>
cc: Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
2024-03-19 10:00:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-29 22:31:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-10-12 09:06:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-29 22:31:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2021-08-26 09:24:42 -04:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:41:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-09 19:52:13 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-07-09 09:43:38 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: Implement unbuffered/DIO read support
Implement support for unbuffered and DIO reads in the netfs library,
utilising the existing read helper code to do block splitting and
individual queuing. The code also handles extraction of the destination
buffer from the supplied iterator, allowing async unbuffered reads to take
place.
The read will be split up according to the rsize setting and, if supplied,
the ->clamp_length() method. Note that the next subrequest will be issued
as soon as issue_op returns, without waiting for previous ones to finish.
The network filesystem needs to pause or handle queuing them if it doesn't
want to fire them all at the server simultaneously.
Once all the subrequests have finished, the state will be assessed and the
amount of data to be indicated as having being obtained will be
determined. As the subrequests may finish in any order, if an intermediate
subrequest is short, any further subrequests may be copied into the buffer
and then abandoned.
In the future, this will also take care of doing an unbuffered read from
encrypted content, with the decryption being done by the library.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: linux-cachefs@redhat.com
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
2022-01-14 17:39:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:41:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2023-10-12 09:06:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-21 11:38:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-08-26 09:24:42 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-19 23:05:40 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:41:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-19 23:05:40 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-29 22:31:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-19 23:05:40 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-19 23:05:40 +00:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: Fix handling of USE_PGPRIV2 and WRITE_TO_CACHE flags
The NETFS_RREQ_USE_PGPRIV2 and NETFS_RREQ_WRITE_TO_CACHE flags aren't used
correctly. The problem is that we try to set them up in the request
initialisation, but we the cache may be in the process of setting up still,
and so the state may not be correct. Further, we secondarily sample the
cache state and make contradictory decisions later.
The issue arises because we set up the cache resources, which allows the
cache's ->prepare_read() to switch on NETFS_SREQ_COPY_TO_CACHE - which
triggers cache writing even if we didn't set the flags when allocating.
Fix this in the following way:
(1) Drop NETFS_ICTX_USE_PGPRIV2 and instead set NETFS_RREQ_USE_PGPRIV2 in
->init_request() rather than trying to juggle that in
netfs_alloc_request().
(2) Repurpose NETFS_RREQ_USE_PGPRIV2 to merely indicate that if caching is
to be done, then PG_private_2 is to be used rather than only setting
it if we decide to cache and then having netfs_rreq_unlock_folios()
set the non-PG_private_2 writeback-to-cache if it wasn't set.
(3) Split netfs_rreq_unlock_folios() into two functions, one of which
contains the deprecated code for using PG_private_2 to avoid
accidentally doing the writeback path - and always use it if
USE_PGPRIV2 is set.
(4) As NETFS_ICTX_USE_PGPRIV2 is removed, make netfs_write_begin() always
wait for PG_private_2. This function is deprecated and only used by
ceph anyway, and so label it so.
(5) Drop the NETFS_RREQ_WRITE_TO_CACHE flag and use
fscache_operation_valid() on the cache_resources instead. This has
the advantage of picking up the result of netfs_begin_cache_read() and
fscache_begin_write_operation() - which are called after the object is
initialised and will wait for the cache to come to a usable state.
Just reverting ae678317b95e[1] isn't a sufficient fix, so this need to be
applied on top of that. Without this as well, things like:
rcu: INFO: rcu_sched detected expedited stalls on CPUs/tasks: {
and:
WARNING: CPU: 13 PID: 3621 at fs/ceph/caps.c:3386
may happen, along with some UAFs due to PG_private_2 not getting used to
wait on writeback completion.
Fixes: 2ff1e97587f4 ("netfs: Replace PG_fscache by setting folio->private and marking dirty")
Reported-by: Max Kellermann <max.kellermann@ionos.com>
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
cc: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
cc: Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>
cc: Hristo Venev <hristo@venev.name>
cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/3575457.1722355300@warthog.procyon.org.uk/ [1]
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/1173209.1723152682@warthog.procyon.org.uk
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2024-08-07 19:38:46 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2023-10-04 16:15:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-29 22:31:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-29 22:31:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-09 09:45:46 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-09 19:52:13 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:41:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-05-27 13:45:28 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-02-06 14:22:24 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-06 17:31:54 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: Implement unbuffered/DIO read support
Implement support for unbuffered and DIO reads in the netfs library,
utilising the existing read helper code to do block splitting and
individual queuing. The code also handles extraction of the destination
buffer from the supplied iterator, allowing async unbuffered reads to take
place.
The read will be split up according to the rsize setting and, if supplied,
the ->clamp_length() method. Note that the next subrequest will be issued
as soon as issue_op returns, without waiting for previous ones to finish.
The network filesystem needs to pause or handle queuing them if it doesn't
want to fire them all at the server simultaneously.
Once all the subrequests have finished, the state will be assessed and the
amount of data to be indicated as having being obtained will be
determined. As the subrequests may finish in any order, if an intermediate
subrequest is short, any further subrequests may be copied into the buffer
and then abandoned.
In the future, this will also take care of doing an unbuffered read from
encrypted content, with the decryption being done by the library.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: linux-cachefs@redhat.com
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
2022-01-14 17:39:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-06 17:31:54 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-03-02 10:50:22 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-29 22:31:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-06 17:31:54 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 21:13:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2023-10-04 16:15:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 21:13:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 21:13:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2022-03-02 10:50:22 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 21:13:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: Implement unbuffered/DIO read support
Implement support for unbuffered and DIO reads in the netfs library,
utilising the existing read helper code to do block splitting and
individual queuing. The code also handles extraction of the destination
buffer from the supplied iterator, allowing async unbuffered reads to take
place.
The read will be split up according to the rsize setting and, if supplied,
the ->clamp_length() method. Note that the next subrequest will be issued
as soon as issue_op returns, without waiting for previous ones to finish.
The network filesystem needs to pause or handle queuing them if it doesn't
want to fire them all at the server simultaneously.
Once all the subrequests have finished, the state will be assessed and the
amount of data to be indicated as having being obtained will be
determined. As the subrequests may finish in any order, if an intermediate
subrequest is short, any further subrequests may be copied into the buffer
and then abandoned.
In the future, this will also take care of doing an unbuffered read from
encrypted content, with the decryption being done by the library.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: linux-cachefs@redhat.com
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
2022-01-14 17:39:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2023-10-04 16:15:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 21:13:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-29 22:31:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-29 22:31:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 21:13:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 15:01:24 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-10-06 18:16:15 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 15:01:24 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 15:01:24 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 15:01:24 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-29 22:31:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 15:01:24 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-17 13:09:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:41:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: Cancel dirty folios that have no storage destination
Kafs wants to be able to cache the contents of directories (and symlinks),
but whilst these are downloaded from the server with the FS.FetchData RPC
op and similar, the same as for regular files, they can't be updated by
FS.StoreData, but rather have special operations (FS.MakeDir, etc.).
Now, rather than redownloading a directory's content after each change made
to that directory, kafs modifies the local blob. This blob can be saved
out to the cache, and since it's using netfslib, kafs just marks the folios
dirty and lets ->writepages() on the directory take care of it, as for an
regular file.
This is fine as long as there's a cache as although the upload stream is
disabled, there's a cache stream to drive the procedure. But if the cache
goes away in the meantime, suddenly there's no way do any writes and the
code gets confused, complains "R=%x: No submit" to dmesg and leaves the
dirty folio hanging.
Fix this by just cancelling the store of the folio if neither stream is
active. (If there's no cache at the time of dirtying, we should just not
mark the folio dirty).
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240814203850.2240469-23-dhowells@redhat.com/ # v2
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
2024-07-29 12:23:11 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-17 13:09:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-17 13:09:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-03-18 20:14:32 +00:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: Replace PG_fscache by setting folio->private and marking dirty
When dirty data is being written to the cache, setting/waiting on/clearing
the fscache flag is always done in tandem with setting/waiting on/clearing
the writeback flag. The netfslib buffered write routines wait on and set
both flags and the write request cleanup clears both flags, so the fscache
flag is almost superfluous.
The reason it isn't superfluous is because the fscache flag is also used to
indicate that data just read from the server is being written to the cache.
The flag is used to prevent a race involving overlapping direct-I/O writes
to the cache.
Change this to indicate that a page is in need of being copied to the cache
by placing a magic value in folio->private and marking the folios dirty.
Then when the writeback code sees a folio marked in this way, it only
writes it to the cache and not to the server.
If a folio that has this magic value set is modified, the value is just
replaced and the folio will then be uplodaded too.
With this, PG_fscache is no longer required by the netfslib core, 9p and
afs.
Ceph and nfs, however, still need to use the old PG_fscache-based tracking.
To deal with this, a flag, NETFS_ICTX_USE_PGPRIV2, now has to be set on the
flags in the netfs_inode struct for those filesystems. This reenables the
use of PG_fscache in that inode. 9p and afs use the netfslib write helpers
so get switched over; cifs, for the moment, does page-by-page manual access
to the cache, so doesn't use PG_fscache and is unaffected.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@infradead.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
cc: Xiubo Li <xiubli@redhat.com>
cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
cc: Paulo Alcantara <pc@manguebit.com>
cc: Ronnie Sahlberg <ronniesahlberg@gmail.com>
cc: Shyam Prasad N <sprasad@microsoft.com>
cc: Tom Talpey <tom@talpey.com>
cc: Bharath SM <bharathsm@microsoft.com>
cc: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>
cc: Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
cc: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
2024-03-19 10:00:09 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-07-30 17:01:40 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2023-10-02 12:51:19 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-17 13:09:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-17 13:09:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-05-29 21:47:07 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2023-10-02 12:51:19 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-17 13:09:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2023-10-12 09:06:24 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-17 13:09:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:41:08 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-02 15:12:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-29 22:31:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-02 15:12:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 21:13:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 15:01:24 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-17 13:09:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-02 15:12:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-29 22:31:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2021-08-26 09:24:42 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-06 17:31:54 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 21:13:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 15:01:24 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-17 13:09:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 10:01:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-05-12 14:10:09 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-10-12 12:05:27 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-10-12 12:05:27 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-07-02 00:40:22 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 10:01:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-08-26 09:24:42 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-08-26 09:24:42 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2021-08-26 09:24:42 -04:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 10:01:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:41:17 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-19 23:05:40 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-06 17:31:54 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 10:01:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-06 17:31:54 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-04-06 17:31:54 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-25 16:24:03 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-04-06 17:31:54 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-25 16:24:03 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-04-06 17:31:54 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-03-18 16:57:31 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-04-06 17:31:54 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 21:13:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 21:13:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 15:01:24 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-17 15:01:24 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-17 13:09:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-09-30 12:59:16 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-17 13:09:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2024-10-05 19:23:03 +01:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-17 13:09:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-17 13:09:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-17 13:09:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-17 13:09:21 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-29 22:31:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2021-06-29 22:31:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-29 22:31:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-29 22:31:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2021-06-29 22:31:48 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:51 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-06-06 07:48:55 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2024-06-06 07:48:55 +01:00
|
|
|
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-12-16 20:40:54 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2022-02-02 15:12:44 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2020-09-18 09:25:13 +01:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
