public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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


  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