Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+willy=40w.ods.org-S267263AbUI0T2f@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S267263AbUI0T2f (ORCPT <rfc822;willy@w.ods.org>);
	Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:28:35 -0400
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267283AbUI0T2f
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:28:35 -0400
Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:1480 "EHLO mail.osdl.org")
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267263AbUI0T2T (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 27 Sep 2004 15:28:19 -0400
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 12:26:06 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
To: Steven Pratt <slpratt@austin.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] Simplified Readahead
Message-Id: <20040927122606.78feb424.akpm@osdl.org>
In-Reply-To: <4158342B.4020505@austin.ibm.com>
References: <4152F46D.1060200@austin.ibm.com>
	<20040923194216.1f2b7b05.akpm@osdl.org>
	<41543FE2.5040807@austin.ibm.com>
	<20040924150523.4853465b.akpm@osdl.org>
	<4154A2F7.1050909@austin.ibm.com>
	<20040924160147.27dbc589.akpm@osdl.org>
	<4158342B.4020505@austin.ibm.com>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-redhat-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 3388
Lines: 82

Steven Pratt <slpratt@austin.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> >yup.  POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED should just populate pagecache and should launch
>  >asynchronous I/O.
>  >
> 
>  Well then this could cause problems (other than congestion) on both the 
>  current and new code since both will effectivly see 2 reads, the second 
>  of which may appear to be a seek backwards thus confusing the code 
>  slightly.  Would it be best to just special case the POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED 
>  and issue the I/O required (via do_page_cache_readahead) without 
>  updating any of the window or current page offset  information ?

That's what we do at present.  do_page_cache_readahead() and
force_page_cache_readahead() are low-level functions which do not affect
file->ra_state.

Except whoops.  POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED is using force_page_cache_readahead(),
which bypasses the congested check.  Wonder how that happened.

<digs out the changeset>

ChangeSet 1.1046.589.14 2003/08/01 10:02:32 akpm@osdl.org
  [PATCH] rework readahead for congested queues
  
  Since Jens changed the block layer to fail readahead if the queue has no
  requests free, a few changes suggest themselves.
  
  - It's a bit silly to go and alocate a bunch of pages, build BIOs for them,
    submit the IO only to have it fail, forcing us to free the pages again.
  
    So the patch changes do_page_cache_readahead() to peek at the queue's
    read_congested state.  If the queue is read-congested we abandon the entire
    readahead up-front without doing all that work.
  
  - If the queue is not read-congested, we go ahead and do the readahead,
    after having set PF_READAHEAD.
  
    The backing_dev_info's read-congested threshold cuts in when 7/8ths of
    the queue's requests are in flight, so it is probable that the readahead
    abandonment code in __make_request will now almost never trigger.
  
  - The above changes make do_page_cache_readahead() "unreliable", in that it
    may do nothing at all.
  
    However there are some system calls:
  
  	- fadvise(POSIX_FADV_WILLNEED)
  	- madvise(MADV_WILLNEED)
  	- sys_readahead()
  
    In which the user has an expectation that the kernel will actually
    perform the IO.
  
    So the patch creates a new "force_page_cache_readahead()" which will
    perform the IO regardless of the queue's congestion state.
  
    Arguably, this is the wrong thing to do: even though the application
    requested readahead it could be that the kernel _should_ abandon the user's
    request because the disk is so busy.
  
    I don't know.  But for now, let's keep the above syscalls behaviour
    unchanged.  It is trivial to switch back to do_page_cache_readahead()
    later.


So there we have it.  The reason why normal readahead skips congested
queues is because the block layer will drop the I/O on the floor *anyway*
because it also skips congested queues for readahead I/O requests.

And fadvise() was switched to force_page_cache_readahead() because that was
the old behaviour.

But PF_READAHEAD isn't there any more, and BIO_RW_AHEAD and BIO_RW_BLOCK
are not used anywhere, so we broke that.  Jens, do you remember what
happened there?

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/