Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <156896493723.4334.13340481207144634918.stgit@buzz>
In-Reply-To: <156896493723.4334.13340481207144634918.stgit@buzz>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 20 Sep 2019 16:05:17 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whmCZvYcR10Pe9fEy912fc8xywbiP9mn054Jg_9+0TqCg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: implement write-behind policy for sequential file writes
To:     Konstantin Khlebnikov <khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru>
Cc:     linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@suse.de>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>, Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 12:35 AM Konstantin Khlebnikov
<khlebnikov@yandex-team.ru> wrote:
>
> This patch implements write-behind policy which tracks sequential writes
> and starts background writeback when file have enough dirty pages.

Apart from a spelling error ("contigious"), my only reaction is that
I've wanted this for the multi-file writes, not just for single big
files.

Yes, single big files may be a simpler and perhaps the "10% effort for
90% of the gain", and thus the right thing to do, but I do wonder if
you've looked at simply extending it to cover multiple files when
people copy a whole directory (or unpack a tar-file, or similar).

Now, I hear you say "those are so small these days that it doesn't
matter". And maybe you're right. But partiocularly for slow media,
triggering good streaming write behavior has been a problem in the
past.

So I'm wondering whether the "writebehind" state should perhaps be
considered be a process state, rather than "struct file" state, and
also start triggering for writing smaller files.

Maybe this was already discussed and people decided that the big-file
case was so much easier that it wasn't worth worrying about
writebehind for multiple files.

            Linus