From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D42E9C433EF for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:44:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232365AbiGVOoB (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2022 10:44:01 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39734 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229519AbiGVOoB (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 Jul 2022 10:44:01 -0400 Received: from dfw.source.kernel.org (dfw.source.kernel.org [IPv6:2604:1380:4641:c500::1]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A73B640BFC; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 07:44:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by dfw.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44111620D6; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:44:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95EC7C341C6; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:43:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1658501039; bh=yPbtlfcebw3+LnEiJK9sg6Qtzsu5e//uacihRKgLA/k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=fzyv5cSdRlKSih5P52FGvi8U6V6oC+eoqT6jqZ8GXtla5rsAqKnFy3Uj5VxGvEWbA 0kLiSCqxH9hywk5fs0j17upKGGOy7nz8f5701luax7PPptzaBevYcR6RF5EHBpV+mS ZoNBnqZqHZOssOPG5NWzMKAKsNqfZljW17y41PtA3qpqiyRK2GKkB7lCEwaPhV7yNt lzK4RdovLA/1ibDjgNEM+ekmNCtjPTAXIPJ+b6aHrYsuk83U2RHm16xn9OORXfL5MC MsfYfxgpNtndzVEgwehTawZs0WtxCn2oE2ehnTw2ueVQUcLEulqGYMPhDuDn2kOV+a vOwNseyBPTfYg== Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 08:43:55 -0600 From: Keith Busch To: Eric Biggers Cc: Keith Busch , Jaegeuk Kim , Chao Yu , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, axboe@kernel.dk, Kernel Team , hch@lst.de, bvanassche@acm.org, damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, pankydev8@gmail.com, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCHv6 11/11] iomap: add support for dma aligned direct-io Message-ID: References: <20220610195830.3574005-1-kbusch@fb.com> <20220610195830.3574005-12-kbusch@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:36:01AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > [+f2fs list and maintainers] > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 12:58:30PM -0700, Keith Busch wrote: > > From: Keith Busch > > > > Use the address alignment requirements from the block_device for direct > > io instead of requiring addresses be aligned to the block size. > > > > Signed-off-by: Keith Busch > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig > > --- > > fs/iomap/direct-io.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c > > index 370c3241618a..5d098adba443 100644 > > --- a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c > > +++ b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c > > @@ -242,7 +242,6 @@ static loff_t iomap_dio_bio_iter(const struct iomap_iter *iter, > > struct inode *inode = iter->inode; > > unsigned int blkbits = blksize_bits(bdev_logical_block_size(iomap->bdev)); > > unsigned int fs_block_size = i_blocksize(inode), pad; > > - unsigned int align = iov_iter_alignment(dio->submit.iter); > > loff_t length = iomap_length(iter); > > loff_t pos = iter->pos; > > unsigned int bio_opf; > > @@ -253,7 +252,8 @@ static loff_t iomap_dio_bio_iter(const struct iomap_iter *iter, > > size_t copied = 0; > > size_t orig_count; > > > > - if ((pos | length | align) & ((1 << blkbits) - 1)) > > + if ((pos | length) & ((1 << blkbits) - 1) || > > + !bdev_iter_is_aligned(iomap->bdev, dio->submit.iter)) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > if (iomap->type == IOMAP_UNWRITTEN) { > > I noticed that this patch is going to break the following logic in > f2fs_should_use_dio() in fs/f2fs/file.c: > > /* > * Direct I/O not aligned to the disk's logical_block_size will be > * attempted, but will fail with -EINVAL. > * > * f2fs additionally requires that direct I/O be aligned to the > * filesystem block size, which is often a stricter requirement. > * However, f2fs traditionally falls back to buffered I/O on requests > * that are logical_block_size-aligned but not fs-block aligned. > * > * The below logic implements this behavior. > */ > align = iocb->ki_pos | iov_iter_alignment(iter); > if (!IS_ALIGNED(align, i_blocksize(inode)) && > IS_ALIGNED(align, bdev_logical_block_size(inode->i_sb->s_bdev))) > return false; > > return true; > > So, f2fs assumes that __iomap_dio_rw() returns an error if the I/O isn't logical > block aligned. This patch changes that. The result is that DIO will sometimes > proceed in cases where the I/O doesn't have the fs block alignment required by > f2fs for all DIO. > > Does anyone have any thoughts about what f2fs should be doing here? I think > it's weird that f2fs has different behaviors for different degrees of > misalignment: fail with EINVAL if not logical block aligned, else fallback to > buffered I/O if not fs block aligned. I think it should be one convention or > the other. Any opinions about which one it should be? It looks like f2fs just falls back to buffered IO for this condition without reaching the new code in iomap_dio_bio_iter(). btrfs does the same thing (check_direct_IO()). Is that a problem? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (lists.sourceforge.net [216.105.38.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18E4FC433EF for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:44:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1oEtt2-0000SM-N6; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:44:16 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1oEtt1-0000SB-UW for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:44:15 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=8gYsYxrPvuiBbzd+al2cbD2TRXSGDQML3v6jK8tjh5c=; b=P1id7KPz9t056Vj+9qAq43Ruqj /AKpWK5oijgulFnpMlX8H9qZvysFFYGYbbO8DDsDe/R2LFHrweVWJQD077ojN3gplz2V+AHixr8+1 EGeF7nQ+9cEHAqJp2JJ1nyJOUOjmvronHHOn9v70g4ExGZXuJBCvoiu2kpX92RQQUM3A=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To :From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=8gYsYxrPvuiBbzd+al2cbD2TRXSGDQML3v6jK8tjh5c=; b=RzmX1OjlDhCFNCc8YiEcflFCiL K4Vclmgd3RWjHAX/UrYXrAYjFDLqIh3B2dOi1TDGX5KM1rRBdWsCdHt4u0p60Inob4uP6vG1qheVm wIpAj1rQp3Q17NUz+8fE0uje0oJLfWeXZVsjFMbYYGsX7EyNZvgtZ42Z3KmUV/qARGGA=; Received: from sin.source.kernel.org ([145.40.73.55]) by sfi-mx-2.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.94.2) id 1oEtsx-0005AR-Se for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:44:15 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (relay.kernel.org [52.25.139.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sin.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4E538CE28AA; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:44:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 95EC7C341C6; Fri, 22 Jul 2022 14:43:58 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1658501039; bh=yPbtlfcebw3+LnEiJK9sg6Qtzsu5e//uacihRKgLA/k=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=fzyv5cSdRlKSih5P52FGvi8U6V6oC+eoqT6jqZ8GXtla5rsAqKnFy3Uj5VxGvEWbA 0kLiSCqxH9hywk5fs0j17upKGGOy7nz8f5701luax7PPptzaBevYcR6RF5EHBpV+mS ZoNBnqZqHZOssOPG5NWzMKAKsNqfZljW17y41PtA3qpqiyRK2GKkB7lCEwaPhV7yNt lzK4RdovLA/1ibDjgNEM+ekmNCtjPTAXIPJ+b6aHrYsuk83U2RHm16xn9OORXfL5MC MsfYfxgpNtndzVEgwehTawZs0WtxCn2oE2ehnTw2ueVQUcLEulqGYMPhDuDn2kOV+a vOwNseyBPTfYg== Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2022 08:43:55 -0600 From: Keith Busch To: Eric Biggers Message-ID: References: <20220610195830.3574005-1-kbusch@fb.com> <20220610195830.3574005-12-kbusch@fb.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Headers-End: 1oEtsx-0005AR-Se Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCHv6 11/11] iomap: add support for dma aligned direct-io X-BeenThere: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, bvanassche@acm.org, pankydev8@gmail.com, damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com, linux-nvme@lists.infradead.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Keith Busch , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Jaegeuk Kim , Kernel Team , hch@lst.de Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 12:36:01AM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > [+f2fs list and maintainers] > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2022 at 12:58:30PM -0700, Keith Busch wrote: > > From: Keith Busch > > > > Use the address alignment requirements from the block_device for direct > > io instead of requiring addresses be aligned to the block size. > > > > Signed-off-by: Keith Busch > > Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig > > --- > > fs/iomap/direct-io.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c > > index 370c3241618a..5d098adba443 100644 > > --- a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c > > +++ b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c > > @@ -242,7 +242,6 @@ static loff_t iomap_dio_bio_iter(const struct iomap_iter *iter, > > struct inode *inode = iter->inode; > > unsigned int blkbits = blksize_bits(bdev_logical_block_size(iomap->bdev)); > > unsigned int fs_block_size = i_blocksize(inode), pad; > > - unsigned int align = iov_iter_alignment(dio->submit.iter); > > loff_t length = iomap_length(iter); > > loff_t pos = iter->pos; > > unsigned int bio_opf; > > @@ -253,7 +252,8 @@ static loff_t iomap_dio_bio_iter(const struct iomap_iter *iter, > > size_t copied = 0; > > size_t orig_count; > > > > - if ((pos | length | align) & ((1 << blkbits) - 1)) > > + if ((pos | length) & ((1 << blkbits) - 1) || > > + !bdev_iter_is_aligned(iomap->bdev, dio->submit.iter)) > > return -EINVAL; > > > > if (iomap->type == IOMAP_UNWRITTEN) { > > I noticed that this patch is going to break the following logic in > f2fs_should_use_dio() in fs/f2fs/file.c: > > /* > * Direct I/O not aligned to the disk's logical_block_size will be > * attempted, but will fail with -EINVAL. > * > * f2fs additionally requires that direct I/O be aligned to the > * filesystem block size, which is often a stricter requirement. > * However, f2fs traditionally falls back to buffered I/O on requests > * that are logical_block_size-aligned but not fs-block aligned. > * > * The below logic implements this behavior. > */ > align = iocb->ki_pos | iov_iter_alignment(iter); > if (!IS_ALIGNED(align, i_blocksize(inode)) && > IS_ALIGNED(align, bdev_logical_block_size(inode->i_sb->s_bdev))) > return false; > > return true; > > So, f2fs assumes that __iomap_dio_rw() returns an error if the I/O isn't logical > block aligned. This patch changes that. The result is that DIO will sometimes > proceed in cases where the I/O doesn't have the fs block alignment required by > f2fs for all DIO. > > Does anyone have any thoughts about what f2fs should be doing here? I think > it's weird that f2fs has different behaviors for different degrees of > misalignment: fail with EINVAL if not logical block aligned, else fallback to > buffered I/O if not fs block aligned. I think it should be one convention or > the other. Any opinions about which one it should be? It looks like f2fs just falls back to buffered IO for this condition without reaching the new code in iomap_dio_bio_iter(). btrfs does the same thing (check_direct_IO()). Is that a problem? _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel