On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 3:36 AM Yu Kuai wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 在 2023/12/06 16:30, Song Liu 写道:
> > On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 7:18 PM Yu Kuai wrote:
> >>
> >> From: Yu Kuai
> >>
> >> New mddev_resume() calls are added to synchroniza IO with array
> >> reconfiguration, however, this introduce a
On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 7:18 PM Yu Kuai wrote:
>
> From: Yu Kuai
>
> New mddev_resume() calls are added to synchroniza IO with array
> reconfiguration, however, this introduce a regression while adding it in
> md_start_sync():
>
> 1) someone set MD_RECOVERY_NEEDED first;
> 2) daemon thread grab
From: Nitesh Shetty
For the devices which does not support copy, copy emulation is added.
It is required for in-kernel users like fabrics, where file descriptor is
not available and hence they can't use copy_file_range.
Copy-emulation is implemented by reading from source into memory and
writing
From: Nitesh Shetty
Introduce blkdev_copy_offload to perform copy offload.
Issue REQ_OP_COPY_SRC with source info along with taking a plug.
This flows till request layer and waits for dst bio to arrive.
Issue REQ_OP_COPY_DST with destination info and this bio reaches request
layer and merges
From: Anuj Gupta
This is a prep patch. Allow copy_file_range to work for block devices.
Relaxing generic_copy_file_checks allows us to reuse the existing infra,
instead of adding a new user interface for block copy offload.
Change generic_copy_file_checks to use ->f_mapping->host for both
From: Nitesh Shetty
For direct block device opened with O_DIRECT, use copy_file_range to
issue device copy offload, or use generic_copy_file_range in case
device copy offload capability is absent or the device files are not open
with O_DIRECT.
Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke
Signed-off-by: Anuj
From: Nitesh Shetty
Current design only supports single source range.
We receive a request with REQ_OP_COPY_SRC.
Parse this request which consists of src(1st) and dst(2nd) bios.
Form a copy command (TP 4065)
trace event support for nvme_copy_cmd.
Set the device copy limits to queue limits.
From: Nitesh Shetty
Before enabling copy for dm target, check if underlying devices and
dm target support copy. Avoid split happening inside dm target.
Fail early if the request needs split, currently splitting copy
request is not supported.
Signed-off-by: Nitesh Shetty
---
From: Nitesh Shetty
Add support for handling nvme_cmd_copy command on target.
For bdev-ns if backing device supports copy offload we call device copy
offload (blkdev_copy_offload).
In case of absence of device copy offload capability, we use copy emulation
(blkdev_copy_emulation)
For file-ns
From: Nitesh Shetty
Setting copy_offload_supported flag to enable offload.
Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke
Signed-off-by: Nitesh Shetty
---
drivers/md/dm-linear.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-linear.c b/drivers/md/dm-linear.c
index 2d3e186ca87e..cfec2fac28e1
From: Nitesh Shetty
We add two new opcode REQ_OP_COPY_SRC, REQ_OP_COPY_DST.
Since copy is a composite operation involving src and dst sectors/lba,
each needs to be represented by a separate bio to make it compatible
with device mapper.
We expect caller to take a plug and send bio with source
From: Nitesh Shetty
Add device limits as sysfs entries,
- copy_max_bytes (RW)
- copy_max_hw_bytes (RO)
Above limits help to split the copy payload in block layer.
copy_max_bytes: maximum total length of copy in single payload.
copy_max_hw_bytes: Reflects the device supported
From: Nitesh Shetty
Hi Martin, Christoph,
We have addressed most of the review-comments received from community in
the previous iterations of this series.
Is it possible to know your opinion on this, what needs to be added to
get this series merged?
The patch series covers the points discussed
From: Nitesh Shetty
Implementation is based on existing read and write infrastructure.
copy_max_bytes: A new configfs and module parameter is introduced, which
can be used to set hardware/driver supported maximum copy limit.
Only request based queue mode will support for copy offload.
Added
From: Nitesh Shetty
This is a prep patch to enable copy trace capability.
At present only zoned null_block is using trace, so we decoupled trace
and zoned dependency to make it usable in null_blk driver also.
Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke
Signed-off-by: Nitesh Shetty
Signed-off-by: Anuj Gupta
Hi,
在 2023/12/06 16:30, Song Liu 写道:
On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 7:18 PM Yu Kuai wrote:
From: Yu Kuai
New mddev_resume() calls are added to synchroniza IO with array
reconfiguration, however, this introduce a regression while adding it in
md_start_sync():
1) someone set MD_RECOVERY_NEEDED
From: Hongyu Jin
when read FEC and hash from disk, I/O priority are inconsistent
with data block and blocked by other I/O with low I/O priority.
Add dm_bufio_prefetch_by_ioprio() and dm_bufio_read_by_ioprio(),
can pecific I/O priority for some I/O.
Make I/O for FEC and hash has same I/O
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:33PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Waiman Long
>
> The dlock list needs one list for each of the CPUs available. However,
> for sibling CPUs, they are sharing the L2 and probably L1 caches
> too. As a result, there is not much to gain in term of avoiding
>
On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 03:59:10PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 02:40:24AM +, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:32PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > > @@ -303,6 +303,7 @@ static void destroy_unused_super(struct super_block
> > > *s)
> > >
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 11:58:44PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:37PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner
> >
> > Scalability of the global inode_hash_lock really sucks for
> > filesystems that use the vfs inode cache (i.e. everything but XFS).
>
>
Hi,
在 2023/12/07 1:24, Song Liu 写道:
On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 3:36 AM Yu Kuai wrote:
Hi,
在 2023/12/06 16:30, Song Liu 写道:
On Sun, Dec 3, 2023 at 7:18 PM Yu Kuai wrote:
From: Yu Kuai
New mddev_resume() calls are added to synchroniza IO with array
reconfiguration, however, this introduce a
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:38PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner
>
> Because we are going to change how the structure is laid out to
> support RTPREEMPT and LOCKDEP, just assuming that the hash table is
> allocated as zeroed memory is no longer sufficient to initialise
> a
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:31PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Jan Kara
>
> evict_inodes() and invalidate_inodes() use list_for_each_entry_safe()
> to iterate sb->s_inodes list. However, since we use i_lru list entry for
> our local temporary list of inodes to destroy, the inode is
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 11:16:50PM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:39PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner
> >
> > hash-bl nests spinlocks inside the bit locks. This causes problems
> > for CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT which converts spin locks to sleeping
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:33PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Waiman Long
>
> The dlock list needs one list for each of the CPUs available. However,
> for sibling CPUs, they are sharing the L2 and probably L1 caches
> too. As a result, there is not much to gain in term of avoiding
>
On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 12:42:59AM -0500, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:33PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Waiman Long
> >
> > The dlock list needs one list for each of the CPUs available. However,
> > for sibling CPUs, they are sharing the L2 and probably L1
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:37PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner
>
> Scalability of the global inode_hash_lock really sucks for
> filesystems that use the vfs inode cache (i.e. everything but XFS).
Ages ago, we talked about (and I attempted, but ended up swearing at
inode
On Thu, Dec 07, 2023 at 02:40:24AM +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:32PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> > @@ -303,6 +303,7 @@ static void destroy_unused_super(struct super_block *s)
> > super_unlock_excl(s);
> > list_lru_destroy(>s_dentry_lru);
> >
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:37PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> + /*
> + * There are some callers that come through here without synchronisation
> + * and potentially with multiple references to the inode. Hence we have
> + * to handle the case that we might race with a remove
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:33PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Waiman Long
>
> The dlock list needs one list for each of the CPUs available. However,
> for sibling CPUs, they are sharing the L2 and probably L1 caches
> too. As a result, there is not much to gain in term of avoiding
>
On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 6:04 PM Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 04:52:42PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 1:07 AM Dave Chinner wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Dave Chinner
> > >
> > > Because it's a horrible point of lock contention under heavily
> > > concurrent
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:31PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Jan Kara
>
> evict_inodes() and invalidate_inodes() use list_for_each_entry_safe()
> to iterate sb->s_inodes list. However, since we use i_lru list entry for
> our local temporary list of inodes to destroy, the inode is
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:35PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner
>
> In preparation for changing the inode hash table implementation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner
ACKed-by: Al Viro
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:39PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner
>
> hash-bl nests spinlocks inside the bit locks. This causes problems
> for CONFIG_PREEMPT_RT which converts spin locks to sleeping locks,
> and we're not allowed to sleep while holding a spinning lock.
>
>
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:32PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> @@ -303,6 +303,7 @@ static void destroy_unused_super(struct super_block *s)
> super_unlock_excl(s);
> list_lru_destroy(>s_dentry_lru);
> list_lru_destroy(>s_inode_lru);
> + free_dlock_list_heads(>s_inodes);
>
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:30PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> +static inline struct dlock_list_node *
> +__dlock_list_next_entry(struct dlock_list_node *curr,
> + struct dlock_list_iter *iter)
> +{
> + /*
> + * Find next entry
> + */
> + if (curr)
> +
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:05:36PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner
>
> in preparation for switching the VFS inode cache over the hlist_bl
> lists, we nee dto be able to fake a list node that looks like it is
> hased for correct operation of filesystems that don't directly use
>
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 04:52:42PM -0500, Paul Moore wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 1:07 AM Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > From: Dave Chinner
> >
> > Because it's a horrible point of lock contention under heavily
> > concurrent directory traversals...
> >
> > - 12.14% d_instantiate
> > -
On Wed, Dec 6, 2023 at 1:07 AM Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> From: Dave Chinner
>
> Because it's a horrible point of lock contention under heavily
> concurrent directory traversals...
>
> - 12.14% d_instantiate
> - 12.06% security_d_instantiate
> - 12.13% selinux_d_instantiate
>
39 matches
Mail list logo
