Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933309Ab2JYCEN (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:04:13 -0400 Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com ([209.85.223.174]:34594 "EHLO mail-ie0-f174.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755636Ab2JYCEL (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:04:11 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20121025015014.GC29378@dastard> References: <1350996411-5425-1-git-send-email-casualfisher@gmail.com> <20121023224706.GR4291@dastard> <20121024201921.GX4291@dastard> <20121025015014.GC29378@dastard> Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:04:10 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: readahead: remove redundant ra_pages in file_ra_state From: YingHang Zhu To: Dave Chinner Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, Fengguang Wu , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 4376 Lines: 92 On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 9:50 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 08:17:05AM +0800, YingHang Zhu wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 4:19 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: >> > On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 07:53:59AM +0800, YingHang Zhu wrote: >> >> Hi Dave, >> >> On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 08:46:51PM +0800, Ying Zhu wrote: >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> Recently we ran into the bug that an opened file's ra_pages does not >> >> >> synchronize with it's backing device's when the latter is changed >> >> >> with blockdev --setra, the application needs to reopen the file >> >> >> to know the change, >> >> > >> >> > or simply call fadvise(fd, POSIX_FADV_NORMAL) to reset the readhead >> >> > window to the (new) bdi default. >> >> > >> >> >> which is inappropriate under our circumstances. >> >> > >> >> > Which are? We don't know your circumstances, so you need to tell us >> >> > why you need this and why existing methods of handling such changes >> >> > are insufficient... >> >> > >> >> > Optimal readahead windows tend to be a physical property of the >> >> > storage and that does not tend to change dynamically. Hence block >> >> > device readahead should only need to be set up once, and generally >> >> > that can be done before the filesystem is mounted and files are >> >> > opened (e.g. via udev rules). Hence you need to explain why you need >> >> > to change the default block device readahead on the fly, and why >> >> > fadvise(POSIX_FADV_NORMAL) is "inappropriate" to set readahead >> >> > windows to the new defaults. >> >> Our system is a fuse-based file system, fuse creates a >> >> pseudo backing device for the user space file systems, the default readahead >> >> size is 128KB and it can't fully utilize the backing storage's read ability, >> >> so we should tune it. >> > >> > Sure, but that doesn't tell me anything about why you can't do this >> > at mount time before the application opens any files. i.e. you've >> > simply stated the reason why readahead is tunable, not why you need >> > to be fully dynamic..... >> We store our file system's data on different disks so we need to change ra_pages >> dynamically according to where the data resides, it can't be fixed at mount time >> or when we open files. > > That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. let me try to get this > straight. > > There is data that resides on two devices (A + B), and a fuse > filesystem to access that data. There is a single file in the fuse > fs has data on both devices. An app has the file open, and when the > data it is accessing is on device A you need to set the readahead to > what is best for device A? And when the app tries to access data for > that file that is on device B, you need to set the readahead to what > is best for device B? And you are changing the fuse BDI readahead > settings according to where the data in the back end lies? > > It seems to me that you should be setting the fuse readahead to the > maximum of the readahead windows the data devices have configured at > mount time and leaving it at that.... Then it may not fully utilize some device's read IO bandwidth and put too much burden on other devices. > >> The abstract bdi of fuse and btrfs provides some dynamically changing >> bdi.ra_pages >> based on the real backing device. IMHO this should not be ignored. > > btrfs simply takes into account the number of disks it has for a > given storage pool when setting up the default bdi ra_pages during > mount. This is basically doing what I suggested above. Same with > the generic fuse code - it's simply setting a sensible default value > for the given fuse configuration. > > Neither are dynamic in the sense you are talking about, though. Actually I've talked about it with Fengguang, he advised we should unify the ra_pages in struct bdi and file_ra_state and leave the issue that spreading data across disks as it is. Fengguang, what's you opinion about this? Thanks, Ying Zhu > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com -- 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/