From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Jane Chu <jane.chu@oracle.com>,
"dan.j.williams@intel.com" <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
"vishal.l.verma@intel.com" <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
"dave.jiang@intel.com" <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
"agk@redhat.com" <agk@redhat.com>,
"snitzer@redhat.com" <snitzer@redhat.com>,
"dm-devel@redhat.com" <dm-devel@redhat.com>,
"ira.weiny@intel.com" <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
"willy@infradead.org" <willy@infradead.org>,
"vgoyal@redhat.com" <vgoyal@redhat.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"nvdimm@lists.linux.dev" <nvdimm@lists.linux.dev>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 0/6] dax poison recovery with RWF_RECOVERY_DATA flag
Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:57:47 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20211029165747.GC2237511@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <22255117-52de-4b2d-822e-b4bc50bbc52b@gmail.com>
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 12:46:14PM +0100, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 10/28/21 23:59, Dave Chinner wrote:
> [...]
> > > > Well, my point is doing recovery from bit errors is by definition not
> > > > the fast path. Which is why I'd rather keep it away from the pmem
> > > > read/write fast path, which also happens to be the (much more important)
> > > > non-pmem read/write path.
> > >
> > > The trouble is, we really /do/ want to be able to (re)write the failed
> > > area, and we probably want to try to read whatever we can. Those are
> > > reads and writes, not {pre,f}allocation activities. This is where Dave
> > > and I arrived at a month ago.
> > >
> > > Unless you'd be ok with a second IO path for recovery where we're
> > > allowed to be slow? That would probably have the same user interface
> > > flag, just a different path into the pmem driver.
> >
> > I just don't see how 4 single line branches to propage RWF_RECOVERY
> > down to the hardware is in any way an imposition on the fast path.
> > It's no different for passing RWF_HIPRI down to the hardware *in the
> > fast path* so that the IO runs the hardware in polling mode because
> > it's faster for some hardware.
>
> Not particularly about this flag, but it is expensive. Surely looks
> cheap when it's just one feature, but there are dozens of them with
> limited applicability, default config kernels are already sluggish
> when it comes to really fast devices and it's not getting better.
> Also, pretty often every of them will add a bunch of extra checks
> to fix something of whatever it would be.
So we can't have data recovery because moving fast the only goal?
That's so meta.
--D
> So let's add a bit of pragmatism to the picture, if there is just one
> user of a feature but it adds overhead for millions of machines that
> won't ever use it, it's expensive.
>
> This one doesn't spill yet into paths I care about, but in general
> it'd be great if we start thinking more about such stuff instead of
> throwing yet another if into the path, e.g. by shifting the overhead
> from linear to a constant for cases that don't use it, for instance
> with callbacks or bit masks.
>
> > IOWs, saying that we shouldn't implement RWF_RECOVERY because it
> > adds a handful of branches the fast path is like saying that we
> > shouldn't implement RWF_HIPRI because it slows down the fast path
> > for non-polled IO....
> >
> > Just factor the actual recovery operations out into a separate
> > function like:
>
> --
> Pavel Begunkov
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-10-29 16:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-10-21 0:10 [PATCH 0/6] dax poison recovery with RWF_RECOVERY_DATA flag Jane Chu
2021-10-21 0:10 ` [PATCH 1/6] dax: introduce RWF_RECOVERY_DATA flag to preadv2() and pwritev2() Jane Chu
2021-10-21 0:10 ` [PATCH 2/6] dax: prepare dax_direct_access() API with DAXDEV_F_RECOVERY flag Jane Chu
2021-10-21 11:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-10-21 18:19 ` Jane Chu
2021-10-21 0:10 ` [PATCH 3/6] pmem: pmem_dax_direct_access() to honor the " Jane Chu
2021-10-21 11:23 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-10-21 18:24 ` Jane Chu
2021-10-21 0:10 ` [PATCH 4/6] dm,dax,pmem: prepare dax_copy_to/from_iter() APIs with DAXDEV_F_RECOVERY Jane Chu
2021-10-21 11:27 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-10-22 0:49 ` Jane Chu
2021-10-22 1:41 ` correction: " Jane Chu
2021-10-22 5:33 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-10-22 20:30 ` Jane Chu
2021-10-21 0:10 ` [PATCH 5/6] dax,pmem: Add data recovery feature to pmem_copy_to/from_iter() Jane Chu
2021-10-21 11:28 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-10-22 0:58 ` Jane Chu
2021-10-21 0:10 ` [PATCH 6/6] dm: Ensure dm honors DAXDEV_F_RECOVERY flag on dax only Jane Chu
2021-10-21 11:31 ` [dm-devel] [PATCH 0/6] dax poison recovery with RWF_RECOVERY_DATA flag Christoph Hellwig
2021-10-22 1:37 ` Jane Chu
2021-10-22 1:58 ` Darrick J. Wong
2021-10-22 5:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-10-22 5:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-10-22 20:52 ` Jane Chu
2021-10-27 6:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-10-28 0:24 ` Darrick J. Wong
2021-10-28 22:59 ` Dave Chinner
2021-10-29 11:46 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-10-29 16:57 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2021-10-29 19:23 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-10-29 20:08 ` Darrick J. Wong
2021-10-31 13:27 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-10-29 18:53 ` Jane Chu
2021-10-29 22:32 ` Dave Chinner
2021-10-31 13:19 ` Pavel Begunkov
2021-11-01 2:31 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-11-02 6:18 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-11-02 19:57 ` Dan Williams
2021-11-03 16:58 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-11-03 20:33 ` Dan Williams
2021-11-04 8:30 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-11-04 12:29 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-11-04 16:24 ` Dan Williams
2021-11-04 17:43 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-11-04 17:50 ` Dan Williams
2021-11-04 18:05 ` Matthew Wilcox
2021-11-04 18:33 ` Jane Chu
2021-11-04 19:00 ` Dan Williams
2021-11-04 20:27 ` Jane Chu
2021-11-05 0:46 ` Dan Williams
2021-11-05 1:35 ` Dan Williams
2021-11-05 5:56 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-11-03 18:09 ` Jane Chu
2021-11-04 6:21 ` Dan Williams
2021-11-04 8:36 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-11-04 16:08 ` Dan Williams
2021-11-04 17:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-11-04 8:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-11-02 16:12 ` Dan Williams
2021-11-02 16:03 ` Dan Williams
2021-11-03 16:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2021-11-06 7:41 ` Lukas Straub
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20211029165747.GC2237511@magnolia \
--to=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=agk@redhat.com \
--cc=asml.silence@gmail.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=dave.jiang@intel.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
--cc=jane.chu@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nvdimm@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.com \
--cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=vishal.l.verma@intel.com \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).