在 2025/7/16 11:43, Jens Axboe 写道:
On 7/15/25 9:34 PM, hanqi wrote:
? 2025/7/15 22:28, Jens Axboe ??:
On 7/14/25 9:10 PM, Qi Han wrote:
Jens has already completed the development of uncached buffered I/O
in git [1], and in f2fs, the feature can be enabled simply by setting
the FOP_DONTCACHE flag in f2fs_file_operations.
You need to ensure that for any DONTCACHE IO that the completion is
routed via non-irq context, if applicable. I didn't verify that this is
the case for f2fs. Generally you can deduce this as well through
testing, I'd say the following cases would be interesting to test:
1) Normal DONTCACHE buffered read
2) Overwrite DONTCACHE buffered write
3) Append DONTCACHE buffered write
Test those with DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP set in your config, and it that
doesn't complain, that's a great start.
For the above test cases as well, verify that page cache doesn't grow as
IO is performed. A bit is fine for things like meta data, but generally
you want to see it remain basically flat in terms of page cache usage.
Maybe this is all fine, like I said I didn't verify. Just mentioning it
for completeness sake.
Hi, Jens
Thanks for your suggestion. As I mentioned earlier in [1], in f2fs,
the regular buffered write path invokes folio_end_writeback from a
softirq context. Therefore, it seems that f2fs may not be suitable
for DONTCACHE I/O writes.
I?d like to ask a question: why is DONTCACHE I/O write restricted to
non-interrupt context only? Is it because dropping the page might be
too time-consuming to be done safely in interrupt context? This might
be a naive question, but I?d really appreciate your clarification.
Thanks in advance.
Because (as of right now, at least) the code doing the invalidation
needs process context. There are various reasons for this, which you'll
see if you follow the path off folio_end_writeback() ->
filemap_end_dropbehind_write() -> filemap_end_dropbehind() ->
folio_unmap_invalidate(). unmap_mapping_folio() is one case, and while
that may be doable, the inode i_lock is not IRQ safe.
Most file systems have a need to punt some writeback completions to
non-irq context, eg for file extending etc. Hence for most file systems,
the dontcache case just becomes another case that needs to go through
that path.
It'd certainly be possible to improve upon this, for example by having
an opportunistic dontcache unmap from IRQ/soft-irq context, and then
punting to a workqueue if that doesn't pan out. But this doesn't exist
as of yet, hence the need for the workqueue punt.
Hi, Jens
Thank you for your response. I tested uncached buffer I/O reads with
a 50GB dataset on a local F2FS filesystem, and the page cache size
only increased slightly, which I believe aligns with expectations.
After clearing the page cache, the page cache size returned to its
initial state. The test results are as follows:
stat 50G.txt
File: 50G.txt
Size: 53687091200 Blocks: 104960712 IO Blocks: 512 regular file
[read before]:
echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
01:48:17 kbmemfree kbavail kbmemused %memused kbbuffers
kbcached kbcommit %commit kbactive kbinact kbdirty
01:50:59 6404648 8149508 2719384 23.40 512 1898092
199384760 823.75 1846756 466832 44
./uncached_io_test 8192 1 1 50G.txt
Starting 1 threads
reading bs 8192, uncached 1
1s: 754MB/sec, MB=754
...
64s: 844MB/sec, MB=262144
[read after]:
01:52:33 6326664 8121240 2747968 23.65 728 1947656
199384788 823.75 1887896 502004 68
echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
01:53:11 6351136 8096936 2772400 23.86 512 1900500
199385216 823.75 1847252 533768 104
Hi Chao,
Given that F2FS currently calls folio_end_writeback in the softirq
context for normal write scenarios, could we first support uncached
buffer I/O reads? For normal uncached buffer I/O writes, would it be
feasible for F2FS to introduce an asynchronous workqueue to handle the
page drop operation in the future? What are your thoughts on this?
Thank you!
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
