From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:40:55 +0100 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] pmem: enable REQ_FUA/REQ_FLUSH handling Message-ID: <20151118104055.GA6097@quack.suse.cz> References: <1447459610-14259-1-git-send-email-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <1447459610-14259-4-git-send-email-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <22E0F870-C1FB-431E-BF6C-B395A09A2B0D@dilger.ca> <20151116200950.GB9737@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151116200950.GB9737@linux.intel.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Ross Zwisler Cc: Dan Williams , Andreas Dilger , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "H. Peter Anvin" , "J. Bruce Fields" , Theodore Ts'o , Alexander Viro , Dave Chinner , Ingo Molnar , Jan Kara , Jeff Layton , Matthew Wilcox , Thomas Gleixner , linux-ext4 , linux-fsdevel , Linux MM , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , X86 ML , XFS Developers , Andrew Morton , Matthew Wilcox , Dave Hansen List-ID: On Mon 16-11-15 13:09:50, Ross Zwisler wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 06:32:40PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > On Nov 13, 2015, at 5:20 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > > >> > > >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Ross Zwisler > > >> wrote: > > >>> Currently the PMEM driver doesn't accept REQ_FLUSH or REQ_FUA bios. These > > >>> are sent down via blkdev_issue_flush() in response to a fsync() or msync() > > >>> and are used by filesystems to order their metadata, among other things. > > >>> > > >>> When we get an msync() or fsync() it is the responsibility of the DAX code > > >>> to flush all dirty pages to media. The PMEM driver then just has issue a > > >>> wmb_pmem() in response to the REQ_FLUSH to ensure that before we return all > > >>> the flushed data has been durably stored on the media. > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler > > >> > > >> Hmm, I'm not seeing why we need this patch. If the actual flushing of > > >> the cache is done by the core why does the driver need support > > >> REQ_FLUSH? Especially since it's just a couple instructions. REQ_FUA > > >> only makes sense if individual writes can bypass the "drive" cache, > > >> but no I/O submitted to the driver proper is ever cached we always > > >> flush it through to media. > > > > > > If the upper level filesystem gets an error when submitting a flush > > > request, then it assumes the underlying hardware is broken and cannot > > > be as aggressive in IO submission, but instead has to wait for in-flight > > > IO to complete. > > > > Upper level filesystems won't get errors when the driver does not > > support flush. Those requests are ended cleanly in > > generic_make_request_checks(). Yes, the fs still needs to wait for > > outstanding I/O to complete but in the case of pmem all I/O is > > synchronous. There's never anything to await when flushing at the > > pmem driver level. > > > > > Since FUA/FLUSH is basically a no-op for pmem devices, > > > it doesn't make sense _not_ to support this functionality. > > > > Seems to be a nop either way. Given that DAX may lead to dirty data > > pending to the device in the cpu cache that a REQ_FLUSH request will > > not touch, its better to leave it all to the mm core to handle. I.e. > > it doesn't make sense to call the driver just for two instructions > > (sfence + pcommit) when the mm core is taking on the cache flushing. > > Either handle it all in the mm or the driver, not a mixture. > > Does anyone know if ext4 and/or XFS alter their algorithms based on whether > the driver supports REQ_FLUSH/REQ_FUA? Will the filesystem behave more > efficiently with respect to their internal I/O ordering, etc., if PMEM > advertises REQ_FLUSH/REQ_FUA support, even though we could do the same thing > at the DAX layer? So the information whether the driver supports FLUSH / FUA is generally ignored by filesystems. We issue REQ_FLUSH / REQ_FUA requests to achieve required ordering for fs consistency and expect that block layer does the right thing - i.e., if the device has volatile write cache, it will be flushed, if it doesn't have it, the request will be ignored. So the difference between supporting and not supporting REQ_FLUSH / REQ_FUA is only in how block layer handles such requests. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755450AbbKRKlG (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Nov 2015 05:41:06 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:49732 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751736AbbKRKlD (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Nov 2015 05:41:03 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:40:55 +0100 From: Jan Kara To: Ross Zwisler Cc: Dan Williams , Andreas Dilger , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "H. Peter Anvin" , "J. Bruce Fields" , "Theodore Ts'o" , Alexander Viro , Dave Chinner , Ingo Molnar , Jan Kara , Jeff Layton , Matthew Wilcox , Thomas Gleixner , linux-ext4 , linux-fsdevel , Linux MM , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , X86 ML , XFS Developers , Andrew Morton , Matthew Wilcox , Dave Hansen Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] pmem: enable REQ_FUA/REQ_FLUSH handling Message-ID: <20151118104055.GA6097@quack.suse.cz> References: <1447459610-14259-1-git-send-email-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <1447459610-14259-4-git-send-email-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <22E0F870-C1FB-431E-BF6C-B395A09A2B0D@dilger.ca> <20151116200950.GB9737@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151116200950.GB9737@linux.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 16-11-15 13:09:50, Ross Zwisler wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 06:32:40PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > On Nov 13, 2015, at 5:20 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > > >> > > >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Ross Zwisler > > >> wrote: > > >>> Currently the PMEM driver doesn't accept REQ_FLUSH or REQ_FUA bios. These > > >>> are sent down via blkdev_issue_flush() in response to a fsync() or msync() > > >>> and are used by filesystems to order their metadata, among other things. > > >>> > > >>> When we get an msync() or fsync() it is the responsibility of the DAX code > > >>> to flush all dirty pages to media. The PMEM driver then just has issue a > > >>> wmb_pmem() in response to the REQ_FLUSH to ensure that before we return all > > >>> the flushed data has been durably stored on the media. > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler > > >> > > >> Hmm, I'm not seeing why we need this patch. If the actual flushing of > > >> the cache is done by the core why does the driver need support > > >> REQ_FLUSH? Especially since it's just a couple instructions. REQ_FUA > > >> only makes sense if individual writes can bypass the "drive" cache, > > >> but no I/O submitted to the driver proper is ever cached we always > > >> flush it through to media. > > > > > > If the upper level filesystem gets an error when submitting a flush > > > request, then it assumes the underlying hardware is broken and cannot > > > be as aggressive in IO submission, but instead has to wait for in-flight > > > IO to complete. > > > > Upper level filesystems won't get errors when the driver does not > > support flush. Those requests are ended cleanly in > > generic_make_request_checks(). Yes, the fs still needs to wait for > > outstanding I/O to complete but in the case of pmem all I/O is > > synchronous. There's never anything to await when flushing at the > > pmem driver level. > > > > > Since FUA/FLUSH is basically a no-op for pmem devices, > > > it doesn't make sense _not_ to support this functionality. > > > > Seems to be a nop either way. Given that DAX may lead to dirty data > > pending to the device in the cpu cache that a REQ_FLUSH request will > > not touch, its better to leave it all to the mm core to handle. I.e. > > it doesn't make sense to call the driver just for two instructions > > (sfence + pcommit) when the mm core is taking on the cache flushing. > > Either handle it all in the mm or the driver, not a mixture. > > Does anyone know if ext4 and/or XFS alter their algorithms based on whether > the driver supports REQ_FLUSH/REQ_FUA? Will the filesystem behave more > efficiently with respect to their internal I/O ordering, etc., if PMEM > advertises REQ_FLUSH/REQ_FUA support, even though we could do the same thing > at the DAX layer? So the information whether the driver supports FLUSH / FUA is generally ignored by filesystems. We issue REQ_FLUSH / REQ_FUA requests to achieve required ordering for fs consistency and expect that block layer does the right thing - i.e., if the device has volatile write cache, it will be flushed, if it doesn't have it, the request will be ignored. So the difference between supporting and not supporting REQ_FLUSH / REQ_FUA is only in how block layer handles such requests. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] pmem: enable REQ_FUA/REQ_FLUSH handling Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:40:55 +0100 Message-ID: <20151118104055.GA6097@quack.suse.cz> References: <1447459610-14259-1-git-send-email-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <1447459610-14259-4-git-send-email-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <22E0F870-C1FB-431E-BF6C-B395A09A2B0D@dilger.ca> <20151116200950.GB9737@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Dan Williams , Andreas Dilger , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "H. Peter Anvin" , "J. Bruce Fields" , Theodore Ts'o , Alexander Viro , Dave Chinner , Ingo Molnar , Jan Kara , Jeff Layton , Matthew Wilcox , Thomas Gleixner , linux-ext4 , linux-fsdevel , Linux MM , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , X86 ML , XFS Developers , Andrew Morton , Matthew Wilcox , Dave Hansen To: Ross Zwisler Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151116200950.GB9737@linux.intel.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org On Mon 16-11-15 13:09:50, Ross Zwisler wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 06:32:40PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > On Nov 13, 2015, at 5:20 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > > >> > > >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Ross Zwisler > > >> wrote: > > >>> Currently the PMEM driver doesn't accept REQ_FLUSH or REQ_FUA bios. These > > >>> are sent down via blkdev_issue_flush() in response to a fsync() or msync() > > >>> and are used by filesystems to order their metadata, among other things. > > >>> > > >>> When we get an msync() or fsync() it is the responsibility of the DAX code > > >>> to flush all dirty pages to media. The PMEM driver then just has issue a > > >>> wmb_pmem() in response to the REQ_FLUSH to ensure that before we return all > > >>> the flushed data has been durably stored on the media. > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler > > >> > > >> Hmm, I'm not seeing why we need this patch. If the actual flushing of > > >> the cache is done by the core why does the driver need support > > >> REQ_FLUSH? Especially since it's just a couple instructions. REQ_FUA > > >> only makes sense if individual writes can bypass the "drive" cache, > > >> but no I/O submitted to the driver proper is ever cached we always > > >> flush it through to media. > > > > > > If the upper level filesystem gets an error when submitting a flush > > > request, then it assumes the underlying hardware is broken and cannot > > > be as aggressive in IO submission, but instead has to wait for in-flight > > > IO to complete. > > > > Upper level filesystems won't get errors when the driver does not > > support flush. Those requests are ended cleanly in > > generic_make_request_checks(). Yes, the fs still needs to wait for > > outstanding I/O to complete but in the case of pmem all I/O is > > synchronous. There's never anything to await when flushing at the > > pmem driver level. > > > > > Since FUA/FLUSH is basically a no-op for pmem devices, > > > it doesn't make sense _not_ to support this functionality. > > > > Seems to be a nop either way. Given that DAX may lead to dirty data > > pending to the device in the cpu cache that a REQ_FLUSH request will > > not touch, its better to leave it all to the mm core to handle. I.e. > > it doesn't make sense to call the driver just for two instructions > > (sfence + pcommit) when the mm core is taking on the cache flushing. > > Either handle it all in the mm or the driver, not a mixture. > > Does anyone know if ext4 and/or XFS alter their algorithms based on whether > the driver supports REQ_FLUSH/REQ_FUA? Will the filesystem behave more > efficiently with respect to their internal I/O ordering, etc., if PMEM > advertises REQ_FLUSH/REQ_FUA support, even though we could do the same thing > at the DAX layer? So the information whether the driver supports FLUSH / FUA is generally ignored by filesystems. We issue REQ_FLUSH / REQ_FUA requests to achieve required ordering for fs consistency and expect that block layer does the right thing - i.e., if the device has volatile write cache, it will be flushed, if it doesn't have it, the request will be ignored. So the difference between supporting and not supporting REQ_FLUSH / REQ_FUA is only in how block layer handles such requests. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 945917F37 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 04:41:08 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C293AC006 for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 02:41:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.suse.de (mx2.suse.de [195.135.220.15]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 5SUIO64LOGV1JTCx (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Wed, 18 Nov 2015 02:41:02 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:40:55 +0100 From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] pmem: enable REQ_FUA/REQ_FLUSH handling Message-ID: <20151118104055.GA6097@quack.suse.cz> References: <1447459610-14259-1-git-send-email-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <1447459610-14259-4-git-send-email-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <22E0F870-C1FB-431E-BF6C-B395A09A2B0D@dilger.ca> <20151116200950.GB9737@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151116200950.GB9737@linux.intel.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Ross Zwisler Cc: Dave Hansen , "J. Bruce Fields" , Linux MM , "H. Peter Anvin" , Jeff Layton , Dan Williams , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , X86 ML , Ingo Molnar , Matthew Wilcox , linux-ext4 , XFS Developers , Alexander Viro , Thomas Gleixner , Andreas Dilger , Theodore Ts'o , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Jan Kara , linux-fsdevel , Andrew Morton , Matthew Wilcox On Mon 16-11-15 13:09:50, Ross Zwisler wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 06:32:40PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > > On Nov 13, 2015, at 5:20 PM, Dan Williams wrote: > > >> > > >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Ross Zwisler > > >> wrote: > > >>> Currently the PMEM driver doesn't accept REQ_FLUSH or REQ_FUA bios. These > > >>> are sent down via blkdev_issue_flush() in response to a fsync() or msync() > > >>> and are used by filesystems to order their metadata, among other things. > > >>> > > >>> When we get an msync() or fsync() it is the responsibility of the DAX code > > >>> to flush all dirty pages to media. The PMEM driver then just has issue a > > >>> wmb_pmem() in response to the REQ_FLUSH to ensure that before we return all > > >>> the flushed data has been durably stored on the media. > > >>> > > >>> Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler > > >> > > >> Hmm, I'm not seeing why we need this patch. If the actual flushing of > > >> the cache is done by the core why does the driver need support > > >> REQ_FLUSH? Especially since it's just a couple instructions. REQ_FUA > > >> only makes sense if individual writes can bypass the "drive" cache, > > >> but no I/O submitted to the driver proper is ever cached we always > > >> flush it through to media. > > > > > > If the upper level filesystem gets an error when submitting a flush > > > request, then it assumes the underlying hardware is broken and cannot > > > be as aggressive in IO submission, but instead has to wait for in-flight > > > IO to complete. > > > > Upper level filesystems won't get errors when the driver does not > > support flush. Those requests are ended cleanly in > > generic_make_request_checks(). Yes, the fs still needs to wait for > > outstanding I/O to complete but in the case of pmem all I/O is > > synchronous. There's never anything to await when flushing at the > > pmem driver level. > > > > > Since FUA/FLUSH is basically a no-op for pmem devices, > > > it doesn't make sense _not_ to support this functionality. > > > > Seems to be a nop either way. Given that DAX may lead to dirty data > > pending to the device in the cpu cache that a REQ_FLUSH request will > > not touch, its better to leave it all to the mm core to handle. I.e. > > it doesn't make sense to call the driver just for two instructions > > (sfence + pcommit) when the mm core is taking on the cache flushing. > > Either handle it all in the mm or the driver, not a mixture. > > Does anyone know if ext4 and/or XFS alter their algorithms based on whether > the driver supports REQ_FLUSH/REQ_FUA? Will the filesystem behave more > efficiently with respect to their internal I/O ordering, etc., if PMEM > advertises REQ_FLUSH/REQ_FUA support, even though we could do the same thing > at the DAX layer? So the information whether the driver supports FLUSH / FUA is generally ignored by filesystems. We issue REQ_FLUSH / REQ_FUA requests to achieve required ordering for fs consistency and expect that block layer does the right thing - i.e., if the device has volatile write cache, it will be flushed, if it doesn't have it, the request will be ignored. So the difference between supporting and not supporting REQ_FLUSH / REQ_FUA is only in how block layer handles such requests. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs