Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230307172015.54911-2-axboe@kernel.dk> <20230412134057.381941-1-bschubert@ddn.com>
 <CAJfpegt_ZCVodOhQCzF9OqKnCr65mKax0Gu4OTN8M51zP+8TcA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZDjggMCGautPUDpW@infradead.org> <20230414153612.GB360881@frogsfrogsfrogs> <cfeade24-81fc-ab73-1fd9-89f12a402486@kernel.dk>
In-Reply-To: <cfeade24-81fc-ab73-1fd9-89f12a402486@kernel.dk>
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date:   Tue, 18 Apr 2023 14:42:03 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJfpegvv-SPJRjWrR_+JY-H=xmYq0pnTfAtj-N8kG7AnQvWd=w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: add FMODE_DIO_PARALLEL_WRITE flag
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
Cc:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Bernd Schubert <bschubert@ddn.com>, io-uring@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, dsingh@ddn.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, 15 Apr 2023 at 15:15, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk> wrote:

> Yep, that is pretty much it. If all writes to that inode are serialized
> by a lock on the fs side, then we'll get a lot of contention on that
> mutex. And since, originally, nothing supported async writes, everything
> would get punted to the io-wq workers. io_uring added per-inode hashing
> for this, so that any punt to io-wq of a write would get serialized.
>
> IOW, it's an efficiency thing, not a correctness thing.

We could still get a performance regression if the majority of writes
still trigger the exclusive locking.  The questions are:

 - how often does that happen in real life?
 - how bad the performance regression would be?

Without first attempting to answer those questions, I'd be reluctant
to add  FMODE_DIO_PARALLEL_WRITE to fuse.

Thanks,
Miklos