On Sat, Jan 23, 2016 at 03:24:49PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:

On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 04:56:30PM -0500, Benjamin LaHaise wrote:

quoted

On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 08:45:46AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:

quoted

Filesystems *must take locks* in the IO path. We have to serialise
against truncate and other operations at some point in the IO path
(e.g. block mapping vs concurrent allocation and/or removal), and
that can only be done sanely with sleeping locks.  There is no way
of knowing in advance if we are going to block, and so either we
always use threads for IO submission or we accept that occasionally
the AIO submission will block.

I never said we don't take locks.  Still, we can be more intelligent 
about when and where we do so.  With the nonblocking pread() and pwrite() 
changes being proposed elsewhere, we can do the part of the I/O that 
doesn't block in the submitter, which is a huge win when possible.

As it stands today, *every* buffered write takes i_mutex immediately 
on entering ->write().  That one issue alone accounts for a nearly 10x 
performance difference between an O_SYNC write and an O_DIRECT write, 

Yes, that locking is for correct behaviour, not for performance
reasons.  The i_mutex is providing the required semantics for POSIX
write(2) functionality - writes must serialise against other reads
and writes so that they are completed atomically w.r.t. other IO.
i.e. writes to the same offset must not interleave, not should reads
be able to see partial data from a write in progress.

No, the locks are not *required* for POSIX semantics, they are a legacy
of how Linux filesystem code has been implemented and how we ensure the
necessary internal consistency needed inside our filesystems is
provided.  There are other ways to achieve the required semantics that
do not involve a single giant lock for the entire file/inode.  And no, I
am not saying that doing this is simple or easy to do.

		-ben

Direct IO does not conform to POSIX concurrency standards, so we
don't have to serialise concurrent IO against each other.

quoted

and using O_SYNC writes is a legitimate use-case for users who want 
caching of data by the kernel (duplicating that functionality is a huge 
amount of work for an application, plus if you want the cache to be 
persistent between runs of an app, you have to get the kernel to do it).

Yes, but you take what you get given. Buffered IO sucks in many ways;
this is just one of them.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

-- 
"Thought is the essence of where you are now."

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux AIO,
see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org">aart@kvack.org</a>