On Wed, 5 Jul 2017, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 01:42:56PM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> > From: Eric Wheeler <[email protected]>
> >
> > Add sysfs entries to support to hint for bypass/writeback by the ioprio
> > assigned to the bio. If the bio is unassigned, use current's io-context
> > ioprio for cache writeback or bypass (configured per-process with
> > `ionice`).
> >
> > Having idle IOs bypass the cache can increase performance elsewhere
> > since you probably don't care about their performance. In addition,
> > this prevents idle IOs from promoting into (polluting) your cache and
> > evicting blocks that are more important elsewhere.
> >
> > If you really nead the performance at the expense of SSD wearout,
> > then configure ioprio_writeback and set your `ionice` appropriately.
> >
> > For example:
> > echo 2,7 > /sys/block/bcache0/bcache/ioprio_bypass
> > echo 2,0 > /sys/block/bcache0/bcache/ioprio_writeback
> >
> > See the documentation commit for details.
>
> I'm really worried about this interface, as it basically uses the
> ioprio field for side channel communication - your app must know
> which value it wants, and you need to configure bcache to fit
> exacltly that scheme.
>
>
> > + /* If the ioprio already exists on the bio, use that. We assume that
> > + * the upper layer properly assigned the calling process's ioprio to
> > + * the bio being passed to bcache. Otherwise, use current's ioc. */
>
> Please make this fit the normal kernel comment style.
ok
> > + ioprio = bio_prio(bio);
> > + if (!ioprio_valid(ioprio)) {
> > + ioc = get_task_io_context(current, GFP_NOIO, NUMA_NO_NODE);
> > + if (ioc) {
> > + if (ioprio_valid(ioc->ioprio))
> > + ioprio = ioc->ioprio;
> > + put_io_context(ioc);
> > + ioc = NULL;
> > + }
> > + }
>
> While get_task_io_context currently is exported it really should not
> be - we should only allocate on when setting the io priority or when
> forking.
>
> What this code really wants is the ioprio related lines of code from
> blk_init_request_from_bio, which should be factored into a new helper.
>
> > + if (ioprio_valid(ioprio) && ioprio_valid(dc->ioprio_writeback)
> > + && ioprio >= dc->ioprio_bypass) {
> > + return true;
> > + }
>
> Incorrect indentation, this shold be:
>
> if (ioprio_valid(ioprio) && ioprio_valid(dc->ioprio_writeback) &&
> ioprio >= dc->ioprio_bypass)
> return true;
>
> And there is some more of this in this and the following patches.
> Please run them through something like checkpatch.pl
Good idea, will do.
>
> > +
> > SHOW(__bch_cached_dev)
> > {
> > struct cached_dev *dc = container_of(kobj, struct cached_dev,
> > @@ -183,6 +186,17 @@ SHOW(__bch_cached_dev)
> > return strlen(buf);
> > }
> >
> > + if (attr == &sysfs_ioprio_bypass)
> > + return snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE-1, "%d,%ld\n",
> > + IOPRIO_PRIO_CLASS(dc->ioprio_bypass),
> > + IOPRIO_PRIO_DATA(dc->ioprio_bypass));
> > +
> > + if (attr == &sysfs_ioprio_writeback)
> > + return snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE-1, "%d,%ld\n",
> > + IOPRIO_PRIO_CLASS(dc->ioprio_writeback),
> > + IOPRIO_PRIO_DATA(dc->ioprio_writeback));
> > +
> > +
>
> Please implement separate sysfs show and store function for your new
> attributes instead of overloading all of them into a giant mess.
ok.
>>
Christoph, thank you for your commentary and quick turn around on all of
these patches!
--
Eric Wheeler
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
