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 53ECBC3F6B0 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2022 00:06:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240821AbiHTAGP (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2022 20:06:15 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:59134 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S244394AbiHTAGN (ORCPT ); Fri, 19 Aug 2022 20:06:13 -0400 Received: from sin.source.kernel.org (sin.source.kernel.org [145.40.73.55]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D29DDC57B6; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 17:06:11 -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 sin.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3ECF5CE2836; Sat, 20 Aug 2022 00:06:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1D478C433C1; Sat, 20 Aug 2022 00:06:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1660953968; bh=bmY/rIg42sR+LftATW/o/kfBdIvBcTzPrp7h7embqQk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=K39ZSV5fNmgcRWBMZwUdCZgWzZRx4KVPEHSqxIley39L2Z2hiBNBanX22WpWOfWNs d15Ey+rZNSUwYf9js/7cqs3A2H+wTTFG5Ulkcy2RBlXLdCbePeSt/bQ6E6l4p/9SQ8 5Z8Ootp22+495DSeGwxqd6Zey02VUyOk2E8NmN5bnBdBNvz/ATRGex/EvcGPFBBDqH VWc0FYVM4JTIZR6ahlo6DQ557864VIumRlzwgMuKA4bMr4nvtcd5M74wghck1FjlAp HNWOgSTuJ7GIeSjlruT3QD0a7HzWwm2oGlU1QsG4ts4QbGQiWKUrmeFQbyTMBzplYu tBO/GigY85Mow== Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 17:06:06 -0700 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Eric Biggers Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Keith Busch Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 6/9] f2fs: don't allow DIO reads but not DIO writes Message-ID: References: <20220722071228.146690-1-ebiggers@kernel.org> <20220722071228.146690-7-ebiggers@kernel.org> 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-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org On 08/15, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 08:08:26PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On 07/25, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 07:01:59PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > > > On 07/22, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > > > From: Eric Biggers > > > > > > > > > > Currently, if an f2fs filesystem is mounted with the mode=lfs and > > > > > io_bits mount options, DIO reads are allowed but DIO writes are not. > > > > > Allowing DIO reads but not DIO writes is an unusual restriction, which > > > > > is likely to be surprising to applications, namely any application that > > > > > both reads and writes from a file (using O_DIRECT). This behavior is > > > > > also incompatible with the proposed STATX_DIOALIGN extension to statx. > > > > > Given this, let's drop the support for DIO reads in this configuration. > > > > > > > > IIRC, we allowed DIO reads since applications complained a lower performance. > > > > So, I'm afraid this change will make another confusion to users. Could > > > > you please apply the new bahavior only for STATX_DIOALIGN? > > > > > > > > > > Well, the issue is that the proposed STATX_DIOALIGN fields cannot represent this > > > weird case where DIO reads are allowed but not DIO writes. So the question is > > > whether this case actually matters, in which case we should make STATX_DIOALIGN > > > distinguish between DIO reads and DIO writes, or whether it's some odd edge case > > > that doesn't really matter, in which case we could just fix it or make > > > STATX_DIOALIGN report that DIO is unsupported. I was hoping that you had some > > > insight here. What sort of applications want DIO reads but not DIO writes? > > > Is this common at all? > > > > I think there's no specific application to use the LFS mode at this > > moment, but I'd like to allow DIO read for zoned device which will be > > used for Android devices. > > > > So if the zoned device feature becomes widely adopted, then STATX_DIOALIGN will > be useless on all Android devices? That sounds undesirable. Do you have a plan to adopt STATX_DIOALIGN in android? > Are you sure that > supporting DIO reads but not DIO writes actually works? Does it not cause > problems for existing applications? I haven't heard any issue so far. > > What we need to do is make a decision about whether this means we should build > in a stx_dio_direction field (indicating no support / readonly support / > writeonly support / readwrite support) into the API from the beginning. If we > don't do that, then I don't think we could simply add such a field later, as the > statx_dio_*_align fields will have already been assigned their meaning. I think > we'd instead have to "duplicate" the API, with STATX_DIOROALIGN and > statx_dio_ro_*_align fields. That seems uglier than building a directional > indicator into the API from the beginning. On the other hand, requiring all > programs to check stx_dio_direction would add complexity to using the API. > > Any thoughts on this? I haven't seen the details of the implementation tho, why not supporting it only if filesystem has the same DIO RW policy? > > - Eric 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 3B7C6C32792 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2022 00:06:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1oPC0N-0000C5-Sc; Sat, 20 Aug 2022 00:06:23 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLS1.2) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.95) (envelope-from ) id 1oPC0M-0000Bz-Sl for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 20 Aug 2022 00:06:22 +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=cdCQzDGa61hh81U45NHpUJso43Z1SvCimXw2Adfl0rs=; b=VoSp3gflM0WEyQCYFjRKnEOiL/ icPxGNu64yB4v0mrDIwbAAvn4Qp2jdhKRfJHt/fpf6CMWXBp3hl5DmYJHyJfzkCsBjP+5MGPU48ft NxDX8PW8SivPeYgakyXvtei9ALqJFlwabwarAucsF9JZKoIEVbFML4A6syoseNeqXMz4=; 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=cdCQzDGa61hh81U45NHpUJso43Z1SvCimXw2Adfl0rs=; b=bvYBC+KCV0tbHRT22RDg6dgSlC 23QB6bJTlNRAMzLHeWgD6cpPKJf0wuqiaE++YuxbtEeYZLzs63558ZY3sgCTjcoS+F4gJPjZhv76C 5dSxZLaR6/H+KD48kc0QuUkbV2Ekrvh0glXVLLnP+/Wo0pGu53/2x4HVdLKjGBHpPXQs=; Received: from ams.source.kernel.org ([145.40.68.75]) by sfi-mx-1.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.95) id 1oPC0L-009yFV-V8 for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 20 Aug 2022 00:06:22 +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 ams.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1A9FDB829A0 for ; Sat, 20 Aug 2022 00:06:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1D478C433C1; Sat, 20 Aug 2022 00:06:08 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1660953968; bh=bmY/rIg42sR+LftATW/o/kfBdIvBcTzPrp7h7embqQk=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=K39ZSV5fNmgcRWBMZwUdCZgWzZRx4KVPEHSqxIley39L2Z2hiBNBanX22WpWOfWNs d15Ey+rZNSUwYf9js/7cqs3A2H+wTTFG5Ulkcy2RBlXLdCbePeSt/bQ6E6l4p/9SQ8 5Z8Ootp22+495DSeGwxqd6Zey02VUyOk2E8NmN5bnBdBNvz/ATRGex/EvcGPFBBDqH VWc0FYVM4JTIZR6ahlo6DQ557864VIumRlzwgMuKA4bMr4nvtcd5M74wghck1FjlAp HNWOgSTuJ7GIeSjlruT3QD0a7HzWwm2oGlU1QsG4ts4QbGQiWKUrmeFQbyTMBzplYu tBO/GigY85Mow== Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 17:06:06 -0700 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Eric Biggers Message-ID: References: <20220722071228.146690-1-ebiggers@kernel.org> <20220722071228.146690-7-ebiggers@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Headers-End: 1oPC0L-009yFV-V8 Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v4 6/9] f2fs: don't allow DIO reads but not DIO writes 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: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Keith Busch , linux-fscrypt@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On 08/15, Eric Biggers wrote: > On Sat, Jul 30, 2022 at 08:08:26PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On 07/25, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > On Sat, Jul 23, 2022 at 07:01:59PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > > > On 07/22, Eric Biggers wrote: > > > > > From: Eric Biggers > > > > > > > > > > Currently, if an f2fs filesystem is mounted with the mode=lfs and > > > > > io_bits mount options, DIO reads are allowed but DIO writes are not. > > > > > Allowing DIO reads but not DIO writes is an unusual restriction, which > > > > > is likely to be surprising to applications, namely any application that > > > > > both reads and writes from a file (using O_DIRECT). This behavior is > > > > > also incompatible with the proposed STATX_DIOALIGN extension to statx. > > > > > Given this, let's drop the support for DIO reads in this configuration. > > > > > > > > IIRC, we allowed DIO reads since applications complained a lower performance. > > > > So, I'm afraid this change will make another confusion to users. Could > > > > you please apply the new bahavior only for STATX_DIOALIGN? > > > > > > > > > > Well, the issue is that the proposed STATX_DIOALIGN fields cannot represent this > > > weird case where DIO reads are allowed but not DIO writes. So the question is > > > whether this case actually matters, in which case we should make STATX_DIOALIGN > > > distinguish between DIO reads and DIO writes, or whether it's some odd edge case > > > that doesn't really matter, in which case we could just fix it or make > > > STATX_DIOALIGN report that DIO is unsupported. I was hoping that you had some > > > insight here. What sort of applications want DIO reads but not DIO writes? > > > Is this common at all? > > > > I think there's no specific application to use the LFS mode at this > > moment, but I'd like to allow DIO read for zoned device which will be > > used for Android devices. > > > > So if the zoned device feature becomes widely adopted, then STATX_DIOALIGN will > be useless on all Android devices? That sounds undesirable. Do you have a plan to adopt STATX_DIOALIGN in android? > Are you sure that > supporting DIO reads but not DIO writes actually works? Does it not cause > problems for existing applications? I haven't heard any issue so far. > > What we need to do is make a decision about whether this means we should build > in a stx_dio_direction field (indicating no support / readonly support / > writeonly support / readwrite support) into the API from the beginning. If we > don't do that, then I don't think we could simply add such a field later, as the > statx_dio_*_align fields will have already been assigned their meaning. I think > we'd instead have to "duplicate" the API, with STATX_DIOROALIGN and > statx_dio_ro_*_align fields. That seems uglier than building a directional > indicator into the API from the beginning. On the other hand, requiring all > programs to check stx_dio_direction would add complexity to using the API. > > Any thoughts on this? I haven't seen the details of the implementation tho, why not supporting it only if filesystem has the same DIO RW policy? > > - Eric _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel