Re: [PATCH 2/2] block: no-copy bvec for direct IO
From: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
Date: 2020-12-11 16:51:12
Also in:
io-uring, linux-fsdevel, lkml
On 11/12/2020 15:38, Johannes Weiner wrote:
On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 02:20:11PM +0000, Pavel Begunkov wrote:quoted
On 11/12/2020 14:06, Johannes Weiner wrote:quoted
On Wed, Dec 09, 2020 at 08:40:05AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:quoted
quoted
+ /* + * In practice groups of pages tend to be accessed/reclaimed/refaulted + * together. To not go over bvec for those who didn't set BIO_WORKINGSET + * approximate it by looking at the first page and inducing it to the + * whole bio + */ + if (unlikely(PageWorkingset(iter->bvec->bv_page))) + bio_set_flag(bio, BIO_WORKINGSET);IIRC the feedback was that we do not need to deal with BIO_WORKINGSET at all for direct I/O.Yes, this hunk is incorrect. We must not use this flag for direct IO. It's only for paging IO, when you bring in the data at page->mapping + page->index. Otherwise you tell the pressure accounting code that you are paging in a thrashing page, when really you're just reading new data into a page frame that happens to be hot. (As per the other thread, bio_add_page() currently makes that same mistake for direct IO. I'm fixing that.)I have that stuff fixed, it just didn't go into the RFC. That's basically removing replacing add_page() with its version without BIO_WORKINGSET
I wrote something strange... Should have been "replacing add_page() in those functions with a version without BIO_WORKINGSET".
quoted
in bio_iov_iter_get_pages() and all __bio_iov_*_{add,get}_pages() + fix up ./fs/direct-io.c. Should cover all direct cases if I didn't miss some.Ah, that's fantastic! Thanks for clarifying.
To keep it clear, do we go with what I have stashed (I'm planning to reiterate this weekend)? or you're going to write it up yourself? Just in case there is some cooler way you have in mind :) -- Pavel Begunkov