Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 1 Mar 2012 17:16:42 +0200
From:      Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
To:        Attilio Rao <attilio@freebsd.org>
Cc:        arch@freebsd.org, Gleb Kurtsou <gleb.kurtsou@gmail.com>, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Prefaulting for i/o buffers
Message-ID:  <20120301151642.GY55074@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ-FndA=ETSTLCxG1=6G4D0ypaqQB7pDiC=VO==gDyz1BrRWFA@mail.gmail.com>
References:  <20120225151334.GH1344@garage.freebsd.pl> <CAJ-FndBBKHrpB1MNJTXx8gkFXR2d-O6k5-HJeOAyv2DznpN-QQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120225194630.GI1344@garage.freebsd.pl> <20120301111624.GB30991@reks> <20120301141247.GE1336@garage.freebsd.pl> <CAJ-FndCSPHLGqkeTC6qiitap_zjgLki%2B8HWta-UxReVvntA9=g@mail.gmail.com> <20120301144708.GV55074@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <CAJ-FndAKs-PK7odTMmh2bSkHvTddbUuO=Espzf8sZReT8KhbxQ@mail.gmail.com> <20120301150125.GX55074@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <CAJ-FndA=ETSTLCxG1=6G4D0ypaqQB7pDiC=VO==gDyz1BrRWFA@mail.gmail.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--k/PDUuKPvLVdBXpq
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 03:11:16PM +0000, Attilio Rao wrote:
> 2012/3/1, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>:
> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 02:50:40PM +0000, Attilio Rao wrote:
> >> 2012/3/1, Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>:
> >> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 02:32:33PM +0000, Attilio Rao wrote:
> >> >> 2012/3/1, Pawel Jakub Dawidek <pjd@freebsd.org>:
> >> >> > On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 01:16:24PM +0200, Gleb Kurtsou wrote:
> >> >> >> On (25/02/2012 20:46), Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> >> >> >> > - "Every file system needs cache. Let's make it general, so th=
at
> >> >> >> > all
> >> >> >> > file
> >> >> >> >   systems can use it!" Well, for VFS each file system is a
> >> >> >> > separate
> >> >> >> >   entity, which is not the case for ZFS. ZFS can cache one blo=
ck
> >> >> >> > only
> >> >> >> >   once that is used by one file system, 10 clones and 100
> >> >> >> > snapshots,
> >> >> >> >   which all are separate mount points from VFS perspective.
> >> >> >> >   The same block would be cached 111 times by the buffer cache.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Hmm. But this one is optional. Use vop_cachedlookup (or call
> >> >> >> cache_entry() on your own), add a number of cache_prune calls. I=
t's
> >> >> >> pretty much library-like design you describe below.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Yes, namecache is already library-like, but I was talking about t=
he
> >> >> > buffer cache. I managed to bypass it eventually with suggestions =
from
> >> >> > ups@, but for a long time I was sure it isn't at all possible.
> >> >>
> >> >> Can you please clarify on this as I really don't understand what you
> >> >> mean?
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Everybody agrees that VFS needs more care. But there haven't been
> >> >> >> much
> >> >> >> of concrete suggestions or at least there is no VFS TODO list.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Everybody agrees on that, true, but we disagree on the direction =
we
> >> >> > should move our VFS, ie. make it more light-weight vs. more
> >> >> > heavy-weight.
> >> >>
> >> >> All I'm saying (and Gleb too) is that I don't see any benefit in
> >> >> replicating all the vnodes lifecycle at the inode level and in the
> >> >> filesystem specific implementation.
> >> >> I don't see a semplification in the work to do, I don't think this =
is
> >> >> going to be simpler for a single specific filesystem (without
> >> >> mentioning the legacy support, which means re-implement inode handl=
ing
> >> >> for every filesystem we have now), we just loose generality.
> >> >>
> >> >> if you want a good example of a VFS primitive that was really
> >> >> UFS-centric and it was mistakenly made generic is vn_start_write() =
and
> >> >> sibillings. I guess it was introduced just to cater UFS snapshot
> >> >> creation and then it poisoned other consumers.
> >> >
> >> > vn_start_write() has nothing to do with filesystem code at all.
> >> > It is purely VFS layer operation, which shall not be called from fs
> >> > code at all. vn_start_secondary_write() is sometimes useful for the
> >> > filesystem itself.
> >> >
> >> > Suspension (not snapshotting) is very useful and allows to avoid some
> >> > nasty issues with unmounts, remounts or guaranteed syncing of the
> >> > filesystem. The fact that only UFS utilizes this functionality just
> >> > shows that other filesystem implementors do not care about this
> >> > correctness, or that other filesystems are not maintained.
> >>
> >> I'm sure that when I looked into it only UFS suspension was being
> >> touched by it and it was introduced back in the days when snapshotting
> >> was sanitized.
> >>
> >> So what are the races it is supposed to fix and other filesystems
> >> don't care about?
> >
> > You cannot reliably sync the filesystem when other writers are active.
> > So, for instance, loop over vnodes fsyncing them in unmount code can ne=
ver
> > terminate. The same is true for remounts rw->ro.
> >
> > One of the possible solution there is to suspend writers. If unmount is
> > successfull, writer will get a failure from vn_start_write() call, while
> > it will proceed normal if unmount is terminated or not started at all.
>=20
> I don't think we implement that right now, IIRC, but it is an interesting=
 idea.

What don't we implement right now ? Take a look at r183074 (Sep 2008).

--k/PDUuKPvLVdBXpq
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (FreeBSD)

iEYEARECAAYFAk9PktoACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4gFwQCfaxSZ9pfQ+PsYYQmWry7vDHCp
tykAnjplVq3pEMugDE19Yffjtw2mu4j3
=9++M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--k/PDUuKPvLVdBXpq--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120301151642.GY55074>