Re: [PATCH 07/11] vfs: add nowait parameter for file_accessed()

From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Hao Xu <hao.xu@linux.dev>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	io-uring@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>,
	Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Stefan Roesch <shr@fb.com>, Clay Harris <bugs@claycon.org>,
	"Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-cachefs@redhat.com,
	ecryptfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
	netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-block@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, codalist@coda.cs.cmu.edu,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, cluster-devel@redhat.com,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-nilfs@vger.kernel.org,
	devel@lists.orangefs.org, linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org,
	samba-technical@lists.samba.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
	Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/11] vfs: add nowait parameter for file_accessed()
Date: Mon, 4 Sep 2023 08:30:52 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZPUJHAKzxvXiEDYA@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <642de4e6-801d-fcad-a7ce-bfc6dec3b6e5@linux.dev>

On Wed, Aug 30, 2023 at 02:11:31PM +0800, Hao Xu wrote:
> On 8/29/23 19:53, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 03:46:13PM +0800, Hao Xu wrote:
> > > On 8/28/23 05:32, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 09:28:31PM +0800, Hao Xu wrote:
> > > > > From: Hao Xu <howeyxu@tencent.com>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Add a boolean parameter for file_accessed() to support nowait semantics.
> > > > > Currently it is true only with io_uring as its initial caller.
> > > > 
> > > > So why do we need to do this as part of this series?  Apparently it
> > > > hasn't caused any problems for filemap_read().
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > We need this parameter to indicate if nowait semantics should be enforced in
> > > touch_atime(), There are locks and maybe IOs in it.
> > 
> > That's not my point.  We currently call file_accessed() and
> > touch_atime() for nowait reads and nowait writes.  You haven't done
> > anything to fix those.
> > 
> > I suspect you can trim this patchset down significantly by avoiding
> > fixing the file_accessed() problem.  And then come back with a later
> > patchset that fixes it for all nowait i/o.  Or do a separate prep series
> 
> I'm ok to do that.
> 
> > first that fixes it for the existing nowait users, and then a second
> > series to do all the directory stuff.
> > 
> > I'd do the first thing.  Just ignore the problem.  Directory atime
> > updates cause I/O so rarely that you can afford to ignore it.  Almost
> > everyone uses relatime or nodiratime.
> 
> Hi Matthew,
> The previous discussion shows this does cause issues in real
> producations: https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/2785f009-2ebb-028d-8250-d5f3a30510f0@gmail.com/#:~:text=fwiw%2C%20we%27ve%20just%20recently%20had%20similar%20problems%20with%20io_uring%20read/write
> 

Then separate it out into it's own patch set so we can have a
discussion on the merits of requiring using noatime, relatime or
lazytime for really latency sensitive IO applications. Changing code
is not always the right solution...

-Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com