Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 17 Sep 2020 14:33:12 -0700
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc:     Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>,
        Anju T Sudhakar <anju@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, willy@infradead.org,
        minlei@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iomap: Fix the write_count in iomap_add_to_ioend().
Message-ID: <20200917213312.GF7954@magnolia>
References: <20200824150417.GA12258@infradead.org>
 <20200824154841.GB295033@bfoster>
 <20200825004203.GJ12131@dread.disaster.area>
 <20200825144917.GA321765@bfoster>
 <20200916001242.GE7955@magnolia>
 <20200916084510.GA30815@infradead.org>
 <20200916130714.GA1681377@bfoster>
 <20200917080455.GY26262@infradead.org>
 <20200917104219.GA1811187@bfoster>
 <20200917144804.GA31389@infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200917144804.GA31389@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 03:48:04PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 06:42:19AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > That wouldn't address the latency concern Dave brought up. That said, I
> > have no issue with this as a targeted solution for the softlockup issue.
> > iomap_finish_ioend[s]() is common code for both the workqueue and
> > ->bi_end_io() contexts so that would require either some kind of context
> > detection (and my understanding is in_atomic() is unreliable/frowned
> > upon) or a new "atomic" parameter through iomap_finish_ioend[s]() to
> > indicate whether it's safe to reschedule. Preference?
> 
> True, it would not help with latency.  But then again the latency
> should be controlled by the writeback code not doing giant writebacks
> to start with, shouldn't it?
> 
> Any XFS/iomap specific limit also would not help with the block layer
> merging bios.

/me hasn't totally been following this thread, but iomap will also
aggregate the ioend completions; do we need to cap that to keep
latencies down?  I was assuming that amortization was always favorable,
but maybe not?

--D