Re: [PATCH v4 07/33] netfs: Abstract out a rolling folio buffer implementation
From: Kees Bakker <hidden>
Date: 2024-11-15 20:02:03
Also in:
ceph-devel, linux-cifs, linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, linux-nfs, lkml, netfs, v9fs
Op 08-11-2024 om 18:32 schreef David Howells:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
A rolling buffer is a series of folios held in a list of folio_queues. New folios and folio_queue structs may be inserted at the head simultaneously with spent ones being removed from the tail without the need for locking. The rolling buffer includes an iov_iter and it has to be careful managing this as the list of folio_queues is extended such that an oops doesn't incurred because the iterator was pointing to the end of a folio_queue segment that got appended to and then removed. We need to use the mechanism twice, once for read and once for write, and, in future patches, we will use a second rolling buffer to handle bounce buffering for content encryption. 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 --- fs/netfs/Makefile | 1 + fs/netfs/buffered_read.c | 119 ++++------------- fs/netfs/direct_read.c | 14 +- fs/netfs/direct_write.c | 10 +- fs/netfs/internal.h | 4 - fs/netfs/misc.c | 147 --------------------- fs/netfs/objects.c | 2 +- fs/netfs/read_pgpriv2.c | 32 ++--- fs/netfs/read_retry.c | 2 +- fs/netfs/rolling_buffer.c | 225 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ fs/netfs/write_collect.c | 19 +-- fs/netfs/write_issue.c | 26 ++-- include/linux/netfs.h | 10 +- include/linux/rolling_buffer.h | 61 +++++++++ include/trace/events/netfs.h | 2 + 15 files changed, 375 insertions(+), 299 deletions(-) create mode 100644 fs/netfs/rolling_buffer.c create mode 100644 include/linux/rolling_buffer.h [...]diff --git a/fs/netfs/direct_write.c b/fs/netfs/direct_write.c index 88f2adfab75e..0722fb9919a3 100644 --- a/fs/netfs/direct_write.c +++ b/fs/netfs/direct_write.c@@ -68,19 +68,19 @@ ssize_t netfs_unbuffered_write_iter_locked(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter * * request. */ if (async || user_backed_iter(iter)) { - n = netfs_extract_user_iter(iter, len, &wreq->iter, 0); + n = netfs_extract_user_iter(iter, len, &wreq->buffer.iter, 0); if (n < 0) { ret = n; goto out; } - wreq->direct_bv = (struct bio_vec *)wreq->iter.bvec; + wreq->direct_bv = (struct bio_vec *)wreq->buffer.iter.bvec; wreq->direct_bv_count = n; wreq->direct_bv_unpin = iov_iter_extract_will_pin(iter); } else { - wreq->iter = *iter; + wreq->buffer.iter = *iter; } - wreq->io_iter = wreq->iter; + wreq->buffer.iter = wreq->buffer.iter;
Is this correct, an assignment to itself?
} __set_bit(NETFS_RREQ_USE_IO_ITER, &wreq->flags); [...]