From: Jens Axboe <[email protected]>
To: Andres Freund <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: io_uring force_nonblock vs POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED
Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2020 09:22:45 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>
On 2/1/20 2:43 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
> Hi
>
> Currently io_uring executes fadvise in submission context except for
> DONTNEED:
>
> static int io_fadvise(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_kiocb **nxt,
> bool force_nonblock)
> {
> ...
> /* DONTNEED may block, others _should_ not */
> if (fa->advice == POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED && force_nonblock)
> return -EAGAIN;
>
> which makes sense for POSIX_FADV_{NORMAL, RANDOM, WILLNEED}, but doesn't
> seem like it's true for POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED?
>
> As far as I can tell POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED synchronously starts readahead,
> including page allocation etc, which of course might trigger quite
> blocking. The fs also quite possibly needs to read metadata.
>
>
> Seems like either WILLNEED would have to always be deferred, or
> force_page_cache_readahead, __do_page_cache_readahead would etc need to
> be wired up to know not to block. Including returning EAGAIN, despite
> force_page_cache_readahead and generic_readahead() intentially ignoring
> return values / errors.
>
> I guess it's also possible to just add a separate precheck that looks
> whether there's any IO needing to be done for the range. That could
> potentially also be used to make DONTNEED nonblocking in case everything
> is clean already, which seems like it could be nice. But that seems
> weird modularity wise.
Good point, we can block on the read-ahead. Which is counter intuitive,
but true.
I'll queue up the below for now, better safe than sorry.
diff --git a/fs/io_uring.c b/fs/io_uring.c
index fb5c5b3e23f4..1464e4c9b04c 100644
--- a/fs/io_uring.c
+++ b/fs/io_uring.c
@@ -2728,8 +2728,7 @@ static int io_fadvise(struct io_kiocb *req, struct io_kiocb **nxt,
struct io_fadvise *fa = &req->fadvise;
int ret;
- /* DONTNEED may block, others _should_ not */
- if (fa->advice == POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED && force_nonblock)
+ if (force_nonblock)
return -EAGAIN;
ret = vfs_fadvise(req->file, fa->offset, fa->len, fa->advice);
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-01 16:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-01 9:43 io_uring force_nonblock vs POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED Andres Freund
2020-02-01 16:22 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2020-02-02 7:14 ` Andres Freund
2020-02-02 16:34 ` Jens Axboe
2020-02-03 6:40 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-02-03 7:42 ` Andres Freund
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 \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
[email protected] \
/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