netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
|
|
|
|
|
/* Network filesystem high-level (buffered) writeback.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Copyright (C) 2024 Red Hat, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
|
|
|
|
|
* Written by David Howells (dhowells@redhat.com)
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* To support network filesystems with local caching, we manage a situation
|
|
|
|
|
* that can be envisioned like the following:
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
|
|
|
|
|
* Folios: | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
* +---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* +------+------+ +----+----+
|
|
|
|
|
* Upload: | | |.....| | |
|
|
|
|
|
* (Stream 0) +------+------+ +----+----+
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* +------+------+------+------+------+
|
|
|
|
|
* Cache: | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
* (Stream 1) +------+------+------+------+------+
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Where we have a sequence of folios of varying sizes that we need to overlay
|
|
|
|
|
* with multiple parallel streams of I/O requests, where the I/O requests in a
|
|
|
|
|
* stream may also be of various sizes (in cifs, for example, the sizes are
|
|
|
|
|
* negotiated with the server; in something like ceph, they may represent the
|
|
|
|
|
* sizes of storage objects).
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* The sequence in each stream may contain gaps and noncontiguous subrequests
|
|
|
|
|
* may be glued together into single vectored write RPCs.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/export.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/fs.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/mm.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#include <linux/pagemap.h>
|
|
|
|
|
#include "internal.h"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Kill all dirty folios in the event of an unrecoverable error, starting with
|
|
|
|
|
* a locked folio we've already obtained from writeback_iter().
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void netfs_kill_dirty_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
|
|
|
|
|
struct writeback_control *wbc,
|
|
|
|
|
struct folio *folio)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
int error = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
do {
|
|
|
|
|
enum netfs_folio_trace why = netfs_folio_trace_kill;
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_group *group = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_folio *finfo = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
void *priv;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
priv = folio_detach_private(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
if (priv) {
|
|
|
|
|
finfo = __netfs_folio_info(priv);
|
|
|
|
|
if (finfo) {
|
|
|
|
|
/* Kill folio from streaming write. */
|
|
|
|
|
group = finfo->netfs_group;
|
|
|
|
|
why = netfs_folio_trace_kill_s;
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
|
group = priv;
|
|
|
|
|
if (group == NETFS_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE) {
|
|
|
|
|
/* Kill copy-to-cache folio */
|
|
|
|
|
why = netfs_folio_trace_kill_cc;
|
|
|
|
|
group = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
|
/* Kill folio with group */
|
|
|
|
|
why = netfs_folio_trace_kill_g;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_folio(folio, why);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
folio_start_writeback(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
folio_unlock(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
folio_end_writeback(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_put_group(group);
|
|
|
|
|
kfree(finfo);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
} while ((folio = writeback_iter(mapping, wbc, folio, &error)));
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Create a write request and set it up appropriately for the origin type.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_request *netfs_create_write_req(struct address_space *mapping,
|
|
|
|
|
struct file *file,
|
|
|
|
|
loff_t start,
|
|
|
|
|
enum netfs_io_origin origin)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_request *wreq;
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_inode *ictx;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wreq = netfs_alloc_request(mapping, file, start, 0, origin);
|
|
|
|
|
if (IS_ERR(wreq))
|
|
|
|
|
return wreq;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-06-08 17:13:51 +02:00
|
|
|
kenter("R=%x", wreq->debug_id);
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ictx = netfs_inode(wreq->inode);
|
|
|
|
|
if (test_bit(NETFS_RREQ_WRITE_TO_CACHE, &wreq->flags))
|
|
|
|
|
fscache_begin_write_operation(&wreq->cache_resources, netfs_i_cookie(ictx));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->contiguity = wreq->start;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->cleaned_to = wreq->start;
|
|
|
|
|
INIT_WORK(&wreq->work, netfs_write_collection_worker);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[0].stream_nr = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[0].source = NETFS_UPLOAD_TO_SERVER;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[0].prepare_write = ictx->ops->prepare_write;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[0].issue_write = ictx->ops->issue_write;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[0].collected_to = start;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[0].transferred = LONG_MAX;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[1].stream_nr = 1;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[1].source = NETFS_WRITE_TO_CACHE;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[1].collected_to = start;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[1].transferred = LONG_MAX;
|
|
|
|
|
if (fscache_resources_valid(&wreq->cache_resources)) {
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[1].avail = true;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[1].prepare_write = wreq->cache_resources.ops->prepare_write_subreq;
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[1].issue_write = wreq->cache_resources.ops->issue_write;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return wreq;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/**
|
|
|
|
|
* netfs_prepare_write_failed - Note write preparation failed
|
|
|
|
|
* @subreq: The subrequest to mark
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Mark a subrequest to note that preparation for write failed.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
void netfs_prepare_write_failed(struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
__set_bit(NETFS_SREQ_FAILED, &subreq->flags);
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_sreq(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_prep_failed);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(netfs_prepare_write_failed);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Prepare a write subrequest. We need to allocate a new subrequest
|
|
|
|
|
* if we don't have one.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void netfs_prepare_write(struct netfs_io_request *wreq,
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_stream *stream,
|
|
|
|
|
loff_t start)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
subreq = netfs_alloc_subrequest(wreq);
|
|
|
|
|
subreq->source = stream->source;
|
|
|
|
|
subreq->start = start;
|
|
|
|
|
subreq->max_len = ULONG_MAX;
|
|
|
|
|
subreq->max_nr_segs = INT_MAX;
|
|
|
|
|
subreq->stream_nr = stream->stream_nr;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-06-08 17:13:51 +02:00
|
|
|
kenter("R=%x[%x]", wreq->debug_id, subreq->debug_index);
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_sreq_ref(wreq->debug_id, subreq->debug_index,
|
|
|
|
|
refcount_read(&subreq->ref),
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_sreq_trace_new);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_sreq(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_prepare);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
switch (stream->source) {
|
|
|
|
|
case NETFS_UPLOAD_TO_SERVER:
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_stat(&netfs_n_wh_upload);
|
|
|
|
|
subreq->max_len = wreq->wsize;
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
case NETFS_WRITE_TO_CACHE:
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_stat(&netfs_n_wh_write);
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
default:
|
|
|
|
|
WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (stream->prepare_write)
|
|
|
|
|
stream->prepare_write(subreq);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
__set_bit(NETFS_SREQ_IN_PROGRESS, &subreq->flags);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* We add to the end of the list whilst the collector may be walking
|
|
|
|
|
* the list. The collector only goes nextwards and uses the lock to
|
|
|
|
|
* remove entries off of the front.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
spin_lock(&wreq->lock);
|
|
|
|
|
list_add_tail(&subreq->rreq_link, &stream->subrequests);
|
|
|
|
|
if (list_is_first(&subreq->rreq_link, &stream->subrequests)) {
|
|
|
|
|
stream->front = subreq;
|
|
|
|
|
if (!stream->active) {
|
|
|
|
|
stream->collected_to = stream->front->start;
|
|
|
|
|
/* Write list pointers before active flag */
|
|
|
|
|
smp_store_release(&stream->active, true);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spin_unlock(&wreq->lock);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stream->construct = subreq;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Set the I/O iterator for the filesystem/cache to use and dispatch the I/O
|
|
|
|
|
* operation. The operation may be asynchronous and should call
|
|
|
|
|
* netfs_write_subrequest_terminated() when complete.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static void netfs_do_issue_write(struct netfs_io_stream *stream,
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_request *wreq = subreq->rreq;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-06-08 17:13:51 +02:00
|
|
|
kenter("R=%x[%x],%zx", wreq->debug_id, subreq->debug_index, subreq->len);
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (test_bit(NETFS_SREQ_FAILED, &subreq->flags))
|
|
|
|
|
return netfs_write_subrequest_terminated(subreq, subreq->error, false);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
// TODO: Use encrypted buffer
|
|
|
|
|
if (test_bit(NETFS_RREQ_USE_IO_ITER, &wreq->flags)) {
|
|
|
|
|
subreq->io_iter = wreq->io_iter;
|
|
|
|
|
iov_iter_advance(&subreq->io_iter,
|
|
|
|
|
subreq->start + subreq->transferred - wreq->start);
|
|
|
|
|
iov_iter_truncate(&subreq->io_iter,
|
|
|
|
|
subreq->len - subreq->transferred);
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
|
iov_iter_xarray(&subreq->io_iter, ITER_SOURCE, &wreq->mapping->i_pages,
|
|
|
|
|
subreq->start + subreq->transferred,
|
|
|
|
|
subreq->len - subreq->transferred);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_sreq(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_submit);
|
|
|
|
|
stream->issue_write(subreq);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
void netfs_reissue_write(struct netfs_io_stream *stream,
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
__set_bit(NETFS_SREQ_IN_PROGRESS, &subreq->flags);
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_do_issue_write(stream, subreq);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
static void netfs_issue_write(struct netfs_io_request *wreq,
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_stream *stream)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq = stream->construct;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!subreq)
|
|
|
|
|
return;
|
|
|
|
|
stream->construct = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (subreq->start + subreq->len > wreq->start + wreq->submitted)
|
2024-05-21 14:37:43 +01:00
|
|
|
WRITE_ONCE(wreq->submitted, subreq->start + subreq->len - wreq->start);
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
netfs_do_issue_write(stream, subreq);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Add data to the write subrequest, dispatching each as we fill it up or if it
|
|
|
|
|
* is discontiguous with the previous. We only fill one part at a time so that
|
|
|
|
|
* we can avoid overrunning the credits obtained (cifs) and try to parallelise
|
|
|
|
|
* content-crypto preparation with network writes.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
int netfs_advance_write(struct netfs_io_request *wreq,
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_stream *stream,
|
|
|
|
|
loff_t start, size_t len, bool to_eof)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_subrequest *subreq = stream->construct;
|
|
|
|
|
size_t part;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!stream->avail) {
|
2024-06-08 17:13:51 +02:00
|
|
|
kleave("no write");
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
return len;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-06-08 17:13:51 +02:00
|
|
|
kenter("R=%x[%x]", wreq->debug_id, subreq ? subreq->debug_index : 0);
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (subreq && start != subreq->start + subreq->len) {
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, stream);
|
|
|
|
|
subreq = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!stream->construct)
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_prepare_write(wreq, stream, start);
|
|
|
|
|
subreq = stream->construct;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
part = min(subreq->max_len - subreq->len, len);
|
2024-06-08 17:13:51 +02:00
|
|
|
kdebug("part %zx/%zx %zx/%zx", subreq->len, subreq->max_len, part, len);
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
subreq->len += part;
|
|
|
|
|
subreq->nr_segs++;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (subreq->len >= subreq->max_len ||
|
|
|
|
|
subreq->nr_segs >= subreq->max_nr_segs ||
|
|
|
|
|
to_eof) {
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, stream);
|
|
|
|
|
subreq = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
return part;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Write some of a pending folio data back to the server.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
static int netfs_write_folio(struct netfs_io_request *wreq,
|
|
|
|
|
struct writeback_control *wbc,
|
|
|
|
|
struct folio *folio)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_stream *upload = &wreq->io_streams[0];
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_stream *cache = &wreq->io_streams[1];
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_stream *stream;
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_group *fgroup; /* TODO: Use this with ceph */
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_folio *finfo;
|
|
|
|
|
size_t fsize = folio_size(folio), flen = fsize, foff = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
loff_t fpos = folio_pos(folio), i_size;
|
|
|
|
|
bool to_eof = false, streamw = false;
|
|
|
|
|
bool debug = false;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-06-08 17:13:51 +02:00
|
|
|
kenter("");
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* netfs_perform_write() may shift i_size around the page or from out
|
|
|
|
|
* of the page to beyond it, but cannot move i_size into or through the
|
|
|
|
|
* page since we have it locked.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
i_size = i_size_read(wreq->inode);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (fpos >= i_size) {
|
|
|
|
|
/* mmap beyond eof. */
|
2024-06-08 17:13:51 +02:00
|
|
|
kdebug("beyond eof");
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
folio_start_writeback(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
folio_unlock(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->nr_group_rel += netfs_folio_written_back(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_put_group_many(wreq->group, wreq->nr_group_rel);
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->nr_group_rel = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (fpos + fsize > wreq->i_size)
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->i_size = i_size;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fgroup = netfs_folio_group(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
finfo = netfs_folio_info(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
if (finfo) {
|
|
|
|
|
foff = finfo->dirty_offset;
|
|
|
|
|
flen = foff + finfo->dirty_len;
|
|
|
|
|
streamw = true;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (wreq->origin == NETFS_WRITETHROUGH) {
|
|
|
|
|
to_eof = false;
|
|
|
|
|
if (flen > i_size - fpos)
|
|
|
|
|
flen = i_size - fpos;
|
|
|
|
|
} else if (flen > i_size - fpos) {
|
|
|
|
|
flen = i_size - fpos;
|
|
|
|
|
if (!streamw)
|
|
|
|
|
folio_zero_segment(folio, flen, fsize);
|
|
|
|
|
to_eof = true;
|
|
|
|
|
} else if (flen == i_size - fpos) {
|
|
|
|
|
to_eof = true;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
flen -= foff;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-06-08 17:13:51 +02:00
|
|
|
kdebug("folio %zx %zx %zx", foff, flen, fsize);
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Deal with discontinuities in the stream of dirty pages. These can
|
|
|
|
|
* arise from a number of sources:
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* (1) Intervening non-dirty pages from random-access writes, multiple
|
|
|
|
|
* flushers writing back different parts simultaneously and manual
|
|
|
|
|
* syncing.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* (2) Partially-written pages from write-streaming.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* (3) Pages that belong to a different write-back group (eg. Ceph
|
|
|
|
|
* snapshots).
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* (4) Actually-clean pages that were marked for write to the cache
|
|
|
|
|
* when they were read. Note that these appear as a special
|
|
|
|
|
* write-back group.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (fgroup == NETFS_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE) {
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, upload);
|
|
|
|
|
} else if (fgroup != wreq->group) {
|
|
|
|
|
/* We can't write this page to the server yet. */
|
|
|
|
|
kdebug("wrong group");
|
|
|
|
|
folio_redirty_for_writepage(wbc, folio);
|
|
|
|
|
folio_unlock(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, upload);
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, cache);
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (foff > 0)
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, upload);
|
|
|
|
|
if (streamw)
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, cache);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Flip the page to the writeback state and unlock. If we're called
|
|
|
|
|
* from write-through, then the page has already been put into the wb
|
|
|
|
|
* state.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
if (wreq->origin == NETFS_WRITEBACK)
|
|
|
|
|
folio_start_writeback(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
folio_unlock(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (fgroup == NETFS_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE) {
|
|
|
|
|
if (!fscache_resources_valid(&wreq->cache_resources)) {
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_cancel_copy);
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, upload);
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_folio_written_back(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_store_copy);
|
|
|
|
|
} else if (!upload->construct) {
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_store);
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_store_plus);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Move the submission point forward to allow for write-streaming data
|
|
|
|
|
* not starting at the front of the page. We don't do write-streaming
|
|
|
|
|
* with the cache as the cache requires DIO alignment.
|
|
|
|
|
*
|
|
|
|
|
* Also skip uploading for data that's been read and just needs copying
|
|
|
|
|
* to the cache.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
for (int s = 0; s < NR_IO_STREAMS; s++) {
|
|
|
|
|
stream = &wreq->io_streams[s];
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_max_len = fsize;
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_off = foff;
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_len = flen;
|
|
|
|
|
if ((stream->source == NETFS_WRITE_TO_CACHE && streamw) ||
|
|
|
|
|
(stream->source == NETFS_UPLOAD_TO_SERVER &&
|
|
|
|
|
fgroup == NETFS_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE)) {
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_off = UINT_MAX;
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_len = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_max_len = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Attach the folio to one or more subrequests. For a big folio, we
|
|
|
|
|
* could end up with thousands of subrequests if the wsize is small -
|
|
|
|
|
* but we might need to wait during the creation of subrequests for
|
|
|
|
|
* network resources (eg. SMB credits).
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
for (;;) {
|
|
|
|
|
ssize_t part;
|
|
|
|
|
size_t lowest_off = ULONG_MAX;
|
|
|
|
|
int choose_s = -1;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Always add to the lowest-submitted stream first. */
|
|
|
|
|
for (int s = 0; s < NR_IO_STREAMS; s++) {
|
|
|
|
|
stream = &wreq->io_streams[s];
|
|
|
|
|
if (stream->submit_len > 0 &&
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_off < lowest_off) {
|
|
|
|
|
lowest_off = stream->submit_off;
|
|
|
|
|
choose_s = s;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (choose_s < 0)
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
stream = &wreq->io_streams[choose_s];
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
part = netfs_advance_write(wreq, stream, fpos + stream->submit_off,
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_len, to_eof);
|
|
|
|
|
atomic64_set(&wreq->issued_to, fpos + stream->submit_off);
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_off += part;
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_max_len -= part;
|
|
|
|
|
if (part > stream->submit_len)
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_len = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
stream->submit_len -= part;
|
|
|
|
|
if (part > 0)
|
|
|
|
|
debug = true;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
atomic64_set(&wreq->issued_to, fpos + fsize);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!debug)
|
|
|
|
|
kdebug("R=%x: No submit", wreq->debug_id);
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-06-05 22:18:04 +01:00
|
|
|
if (foff + flen < fsize)
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
for (int s = 0; s < NR_IO_STREAMS; s++)
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, &wreq->io_streams[s]);
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-06-08 17:13:51 +02:00
|
|
|
kleave(" = 0");
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Write some of the pending data back to the server
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2024-03-08 12:36:05 +00:00
|
|
|
int netfs_writepages(struct address_space *mapping,
|
|
|
|
|
struct writeback_control *wbc)
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_inode *ictx = netfs_inode(mapping->host);
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_request *wreq = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
struct folio *folio;
|
|
|
|
|
int error = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL)
|
|
|
|
|
mutex_lock(&ictx->wb_lock);
|
|
|
|
|
else if (!mutex_trylock(&ictx->wb_lock))
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* Need the first folio to be able to set up the op. */
|
|
|
|
|
folio = writeback_iter(mapping, wbc, NULL, &error);
|
|
|
|
|
if (!folio)
|
|
|
|
|
goto out;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wreq = netfs_create_write_req(mapping, NULL, folio_pos(folio), NETFS_WRITEBACK);
|
|
|
|
|
if (IS_ERR(wreq)) {
|
|
|
|
|
error = PTR_ERR(wreq);
|
|
|
|
|
goto couldnt_start;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_write(wreq, netfs_write_trace_writeback);
|
2024-03-26 08:48:44 +00:00
|
|
|
netfs_stat(&netfs_n_wh_writepages);
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
do {
|
2024-06-08 17:13:51 +02:00
|
|
|
kdebug("wbiter %lx %llx", folio->index, wreq->start + wreq->submitted);
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* It appears we don't have to handle cyclic writeback wrapping. */
|
|
|
|
|
WARN_ON_ONCE(wreq && folio_pos(folio) < wreq->start + wreq->submitted);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (netfs_folio_group(folio) != NETFS_FOLIO_COPY_TO_CACHE &&
|
|
|
|
|
unlikely(!test_bit(NETFS_RREQ_UPLOAD_TO_SERVER, &wreq->flags))) {
|
|
|
|
|
set_bit(NETFS_RREQ_UPLOAD_TO_SERVER, &wreq->flags);
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->netfs_ops->begin_writeback(wreq);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
error = netfs_write_folio(wreq, wbc, folio);
|
|
|
|
|
if (error < 0)
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
} while ((folio = writeback_iter(mapping, wbc, folio, &error)));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for (int s = 0; s < NR_IO_STREAMS; s++)
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, &wreq->io_streams[s]);
|
|
|
|
|
smp_wmb(); /* Write lists before ALL_QUEUED. */
|
|
|
|
|
set_bit(NETFS_RREQ_ALL_QUEUED, &wreq->flags);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mutex_unlock(&ictx->wb_lock);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_put_request(wreq, false, netfs_rreq_trace_put_return);
|
2024-06-08 17:13:51 +02:00
|
|
|
kleave(" = %d", error);
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
return error;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
couldnt_start:
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_kill_dirty_pages(mapping, wbc, folio);
|
|
|
|
|
out:
|
|
|
|
|
mutex_unlock(&ictx->wb_lock);
|
2024-06-08 17:13:51 +02:00
|
|
|
kleave(" = %d", error);
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
return error;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
2024-03-08 12:36:05 +00:00
|
|
|
EXPORT_SYMBOL(netfs_writepages);
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Begin a write operation for writing through the pagecache.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2024-03-08 12:36:05 +00:00
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_request *netfs_begin_writethrough(struct kiocb *iocb, size_t len)
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_request *wreq = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_inode *ictx = netfs_inode(file_inode(iocb->ki_filp));
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mutex_lock(&ictx->wb_lock);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wreq = netfs_create_write_req(iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping, iocb->ki_filp,
|
|
|
|
|
iocb->ki_pos, NETFS_WRITETHROUGH);
|
|
|
|
|
if (IS_ERR(wreq)) {
|
|
|
|
|
mutex_unlock(&ictx->wb_lock);
|
|
|
|
|
return wreq;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->io_streams[0].avail = true;
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_write(wreq, netfs_write_trace_writethrough);
|
|
|
|
|
return wreq;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Advance the state of the write operation used when writing through the
|
|
|
|
|
* pagecache. Data has been copied into the pagecache that we need to append
|
|
|
|
|
* to the request. If we've added more than wsize then we need to create a new
|
|
|
|
|
* subrequest.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2024-03-08 12:36:05 +00:00
|
|
|
int netfs_advance_writethrough(struct netfs_io_request *wreq, struct writeback_control *wbc,
|
|
|
|
|
struct folio *folio, size_t copied, bool to_page_end,
|
|
|
|
|
struct folio **writethrough_cache)
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
2024-06-08 17:13:51 +02:00
|
|
|
kenter("R=%x ic=%zu ws=%u cp=%zu tp=%u",
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
wreq->debug_id, wreq->iter.count, wreq->wsize, copied, to_page_end);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (!*writethrough_cache) {
|
|
|
|
|
if (folio_test_dirty(folio))
|
|
|
|
|
/* Sigh. mmap. */
|
|
|
|
|
folio_clear_dirty_for_io(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/* We can make multiple writes to the folio... */
|
|
|
|
|
folio_start_writeback(folio);
|
|
|
|
|
if (wreq->len == 0)
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_wthru);
|
|
|
|
|
else
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_folio(folio, netfs_folio_trace_wthru_plus);
|
|
|
|
|
*writethrough_cache = folio;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wreq->len += copied;
|
|
|
|
|
if (!to_page_end)
|
|
|
|
|
return 0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*writethrough_cache = NULL;
|
|
|
|
|
return netfs_write_folio(wreq, wbc, folio);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* End a write operation used when writing through the pagecache.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
2024-03-08 12:36:05 +00:00
|
|
|
int netfs_end_writethrough(struct netfs_io_request *wreq, struct writeback_control *wbc,
|
|
|
|
|
struct folio *writethrough_cache)
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_inode *ictx = netfs_inode(wreq->inode);
|
|
|
|
|
int ret;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-06-08 17:13:51 +02:00
|
|
|
kenter("R=%x", wreq->debug_id);
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (writethrough_cache)
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_write_folio(wreq, wbc, writethrough_cache);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, &wreq->io_streams[0]);
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, &wreq->io_streams[1]);
|
|
|
|
|
smp_wmb(); /* Write lists before ALL_QUEUED. */
|
|
|
|
|
set_bit(NETFS_RREQ_ALL_QUEUED, &wreq->flags);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mutex_unlock(&ictx->wb_lock);
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-05-21 14:36:27 +01:00
|
|
|
if (wreq->iocb) {
|
|
|
|
|
ret = -EIOCBQUEUED;
|
|
|
|
|
} else {
|
|
|
|
|
wait_on_bit(&wreq->flags, NETFS_RREQ_IN_PROGRESS, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
|
|
|
|
|
ret = wreq->error;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
netfs_put_request(wreq, false, netfs_rreq_trace_put_return);
|
|
|
|
|
return ret;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
/*
|
|
|
|
|
* Write data to the server without going through the pagecache and without
|
|
|
|
|
* writing it to the local cache.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
int netfs_unbuffered_write(struct netfs_io_request *wreq, bool may_wait, size_t len)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
struct netfs_io_stream *upload = &wreq->io_streams[0];
|
|
|
|
|
ssize_t part;
|
|
|
|
|
loff_t start = wreq->start;
|
|
|
|
|
int error = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-06-08 17:13:51 +02:00
|
|
|
kenter("%zx", len);
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if (wreq->origin == NETFS_DIO_WRITE)
|
|
|
|
|
inode_dio_begin(wreq->inode);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
while (len) {
|
|
|
|
|
// TODO: Prepare content encryption
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-06-08 17:13:51 +02:00
|
|
|
kdebug("unbuffered %zx", len);
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
part = netfs_advance_write(wreq, upload, start, len, false);
|
|
|
|
|
start += part;
|
|
|
|
|
len -= part;
|
|
|
|
|
if (test_bit(NETFS_RREQ_PAUSE, &wreq->flags)) {
|
|
|
|
|
trace_netfs_rreq(wreq, netfs_rreq_trace_wait_pause);
|
|
|
|
|
wait_on_bit(&wreq->flags, NETFS_RREQ_PAUSE, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if (test_bit(NETFS_RREQ_FAILED, &wreq->flags))
|
|
|
|
|
break;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_issue_write(wreq, upload);
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
smp_wmb(); /* Write lists before ALL_QUEUED. */
|
|
|
|
|
set_bit(NETFS_RREQ_ALL_QUEUED, &wreq->flags);
|
|
|
|
|
if (list_empty(&upload->subrequests))
|
|
|
|
|
netfs_wake_write_collector(wreq, false);
|
|
|
|
|
|
2024-06-08 17:13:51 +02:00
|
|
|
kleave(" = %d", error);
|
netfs: New writeback implementation
The current netfslib writeback implementation creates writeback requests of
contiguous folio data and then separately tiles subrequests over the space
twice, once for the server and once for the cache. This creates a few
issues:
(1) Every time there's a discontiguity or a change between writing to only
one destination or writing to both, it must create a new request.
This makes it harder to do vectored writes.
(2) The folios don't have the writeback mark removed until the end of the
request - and a request could be hundreds of megabytes.
(3) In future, I want to support a larger cache granularity, which will
require aggregation of some folios that contain unmodified data (which
only need to go to the cache) and some which contain modifications
(which need to be uploaded and stored to the cache) - but, currently,
these are treated as discontiguous.
There's also a move to get everyone to use writeback_iter() to extract
writable folios from the pagecache. That said, currently writeback_iter()
has some issues that make it less than ideal:
(1) there's no way to cancel the iteration, even if you find a "temporary"
error that means the current folio and all subsequent folios are going
to fail;
(2) there's no way to filter the folios being written back - something
that will impact Ceph with it's ordered snap system;
(3) and if you get a folio you can't immediately deal with (say you need
to flush the preceding writes), you are left with a folio hanging in
the locked state for the duration, when really we should unlock it and
relock it later.
In this new implementation, I use writeback_iter() to pump folios,
progressively creating two parallel, but separate streams and cleaning up
the finished folios as the subrequests complete. Either or both streams
can contain gaps, and the subrequests in each stream can be of variable
size, don't need to align with each other and don't need to align with the
folios.
Indeed, subrequests can cross folio boundaries, may cover several folios or
a folio may be spanned by multiple folios, e.g.:
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
Folios: | | | | | | |
+---+---+-----+-----+---+----------+
+------+------+ +----+----+
Upload: | | |.....| | |
+------+------+ +----+----+
+------+------+------+------+------+
Cache: | | | | | |
+------+------+------+------+------+
The progressive subrequest construction permits the algorithm to be
preparing both the next upload to the server and the next write to the
cache whilst the previous ones are already in progress. Throttling can be
applied to control the rate of production of subrequests - and, in any
case, we probably want to write them to the server in ascending order,
particularly if the file will be extended.
Content crypto can also be prepared at the same time as the subrequests and
run asynchronously, with the prepped requests being stalled until the
crypto catches up with them. This might also be useful for transport
crypto, but that happens at a lower layer, so probably would be harder to
pull off.
The algorithm is split into three parts:
(1) The issuer. This walks through the data, packaging it up, encrypting
it and creating subrequests. The part of this that generates
subrequests only deals with file positions and spans and so is usable
for DIO/unbuffered writes as well as buffered writes.
(2) The collector. This asynchronously collects completed subrequests,
unlocks folios, frees crypto buffers and performs any retries. This
runs in a work queue so that the issuer can return to the caller for
writeback (so that the VM can have its kswapd thread back) or async
writes.
(3) The retryer. This pauses the issuer, waits for all outstanding
subrequests to complete and then goes through the failed subrequests
to reissue them. This may involve reprepping them (with cifs, the
credits must be renegotiated, and a subrequest may need splitting),
and doing RMW for content crypto if there's a conflicting change on
the server.
[!] Note that some of the functions are prefixed with "new_" to avoid
clashes with existing functions. These will be renamed in a later patch
that cuts over to the new algorithm.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@kernel.org>
cc: Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@ionkov.net>
cc: Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
cc: Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@crudebyte.com>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>
cc: v9fs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
2024-03-18 16:52:05 +00:00
|
|
|
return error;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|