Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 20 Aug 2014 08:37:07 +0900 | From | Gioh Kim <> | Subject | Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] fs/buffer.c: allocate buffer cache with user specific flag |
| |
2014-08-19 오후 10:03, Jan Kara 쓴 글: > Hello, > > On Tue 19-08-14 15:52:38, Gioh Kim wrote: >> A buffer cache is allocated from movable area >> because it is referred for a while and released soon. >> But some filesystems are taking buffer cache for a long time >> and it can disturb page migration. >> >> A new API should be introduced to allocate buffer cache >> with user specific flag. >> For instance if user set flag to zero, buffer cache is allocated from >> non-movable area. >> >> Signed-off-by: Gioh Kim <gioh.kim@lge.com> >> --- >> fs/buffer.c | 52 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------- >> include/linux/buffer_head.h | 12 +++++++++- >> 2 files changed, 46 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c >> index 8f05111..14f2f21 100644 >> --- a/fs/buffer.c >> +++ b/fs/buffer.c >> @@ -993,7 +993,7 @@ init_page_buffers(struct page *page, struct block_device *bdev, >> */ >> static int >> grow_dev_page(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, >> - pgoff_t index, int size, int sizebits) >> + pgoff_t index, int size, int sizebits, gfp_t gfp) >> { >> struct inode *inode = bdev->bd_inode; >> struct page *page; >> @@ -1002,10 +1002,10 @@ grow_dev_page(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, >> int ret = 0; /* Will call free_more_memory() */ >> gfp_t gfp_mask; >> >> - gfp_mask = mapping_gfp_mask(inode->i_mapping) & ~__GFP_FS; >> - gfp_mask |= __GFP_MOVABLE; >> + gfp_mask = (mapping_gfp_mask(inode->i_mapping) & ~__GFP_FS) | gfp; >> + > Hum, it seems a bit misleading that the 'gfp' flags are just or-ed to > mapping_gfp_mask(inode->i_mapping). Usually, passed gfp mask is just > directly used. There are also interfaces like pagecache_get_page() which > play more complex tricks with mapping_gfp_mask(). This would be yet another > convention which I don't think is desirable. I know Andrew suggested what > you wrote so I guess I have to settle this with him. Andrew?
I don't know mapping_gfp_mask(). I just add gfp at the original code. Whould you tell me why it is undesirable?
> >> /* >> - * XXX: __getblk_slow() can not really deal with failure and >> + * XXX: __getblk_gfp() can not really deal with failure and >> * will endlessly loop on improvised global reclaim. Prefer >> * looping in the allocator rather than here, at least that >> * code knows what it's doing. >> @@ -1058,7 +1058,7 @@ failed: >> * that page was dirty, the buffers are set dirty also. >> */ >> static int >> -grow_buffers(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, int size) >> +grow_buffers(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, int size, gfp_t gfp) >> { >> pgoff_t index; >> int sizebits; >> @@ -1085,11 +1085,12 @@ grow_buffers(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, int size) >> } >> >> /* Create a page with the proper size buffers.. */ >> - return grow_dev_page(bdev, block, index, size, sizebits); >> + return grow_dev_page(bdev, block, index, size, sizebits, gfp); >> } >> >> -static struct buffer_head * >> -__getblk_slow(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, int size) >> +struct buffer_head * >> +__getblk_gfp(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, >> + unsigned size, gfp_t gfp) >> { >> /* Size must be multiple of hard sectorsize */ >> if (unlikely(size & (bdev_logical_block_size(bdev)-1) || >> @@ -1111,13 +1112,14 @@ __getblk_slow(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, int size) >> if (bh) >> return bh; >> >> - ret = grow_buffers(bdev, block, size); >> + ret = grow_buffers(bdev, block, size, gfp); >> if (ret < 0) >> return NULL; >> if (ret == 0) >> free_more_memory(); >> } >> } >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__getblk_gfp); >> >> /* >> * The relationship between dirty buffers and dirty pages: >> @@ -1381,12 +1383,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__find_get_block); >> struct buffer_head * >> __getblk(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, unsigned size) >> { >> - struct buffer_head *bh = __find_get_block(bdev, block, size); >> - >> - might_sleep(); >> - if (bh == NULL) >> - bh = __getblk_slow(bdev, block, size); >> - return bh; >> + return __getblk_gfp(bdev, block, size, __GFP_MOVABLE); >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__getblk); > Why did you remove the __find_get_block() call? That looks like a bug. > >> @@ -1410,18 +1407,39 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__breadahead); >> * @size: size (in bytes) to read >> * >> * Reads a specified block, and returns buffer head that contains it. >> + * The page cache is allocated from movable area so that it can be migrated. >> * It returns NULL if the block was unreadable. >> */ >> struct buffer_head * >> __bread(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, unsigned size) >> { >> - struct buffer_head *bh = __getblk(bdev, block, size); >> + return __bread_gfp(bdev, block, size, __GFP_MOVABLE); >> +} >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__bread); >> + >> +/** >> + * __bread_gfp() - reads a specified block and returns the bh >> + * @bdev: the block_device to read from >> + * @block: number of block >> + * @size: size (in bytes) to read >> + * @gfp: page allocation flag >> + * >> + * Reads a specified block, and returns buffer head that contains it. >> + * The page cache can be allocated from non-movable area >> + * not to prevent page migration if you set gfp to zero. >> + * It returns NULL if the block was unreadable. >> + */ >> +struct buffer_head * >> +__bread_gfp(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, >> + unsigned size, gfp_t gfp) >> +{ >> + struct buffer_head *bh = __getblk_gfp(bdev, block, size, gfp); >> >> if (likely(bh) && !buffer_uptodate(bh)) >> bh = __bread_slow(bh); >> return bh; >> } >> -EXPORT_SYMBOL(__bread); >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(__bread_gfp); >> >> /* >> * invalidate_bh_lrus() is called rarely - but not only at unmount. >> diff --git a/include/linux/buffer_head.h b/include/linux/buffer_head.h >> index 324329c..a1d73fd 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/buffer_head.h >> +++ b/include/linux/buffer_head.h >> @@ -177,10 +177,14 @@ struct buffer_head *__find_get_block(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, >> unsigned size); >> struct buffer_head *__getblk(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, >> unsigned size); >> +struct buffer_head *__getblk_gfp(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, >> + unsigned size, gfp_t gfp); >> void __brelse(struct buffer_head *); >> void __bforget(struct buffer_head *); >> void __breadahead(struct block_device *, sector_t block, unsigned int size); >> struct buffer_head *__bread(struct block_device *, sector_t block, unsigned size); >> +struct buffer_head *__bread_gfp(struct block_device *, >> + sector_t block, unsigned size, gfp_t gfp); >> void invalidate_bh_lrus(void); >> struct buffer_head *alloc_buffer_head(gfp_t gfp_flags); >> void free_buffer_head(struct buffer_head * bh); >> @@ -295,7 +299,13 @@ static inline void bforget(struct buffer_head *bh) >> static inline struct buffer_head * >> sb_bread(struct super_block *sb, sector_t block) >> { >> - return __bread(sb->s_bdev, block, sb->s_blocksize); >> + return __bread_gfp(sb->s_bdev, block, sb->s_blocksize, __GFP_MOVABLE); >> +} >> + >> +static inline struct buffer_head * >> +sb_bread_gfp(struct super_block *sb, sector_t block, gfp_t gfp) >> +{ >> + return __bread_gfp(sb->s_bdev, block, sb->s_blocksize, gfp); >> } > I think Andrew was suggesting to provide sb_bread_unmovable() and > sb_getblk_unmovable() which would set appropriately. It is then more > obvious what are filesystems trying to do when using those functions...
I think the common interface is important.
If sb_getblk_unmovable() is obvious for the filesystem, I will add some codes for getblk_unmovable() which calling __getblk_gfp(), and sb_bread_unmovable() calling __bread_gfp(). If so, sb_bread_gfp is not necessary.
It might be like followings:
diff --git a/fs/buffer.c b/fs/buffer.c index 14f2f21..35caf77 100644 --- a/fs/buffer.c +++ b/fs/buffer.c @@ -1088,7 +1088,7 @@ grow_buffers(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, int siz return grow_dev_page(bdev, block, index, size, sizebits, gfp); }
-struct buffer_head * +static struct buffer_head * __getblk_gfp(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, unsigned size, gfp_t gfp) { @@ -1119,7 +1119,13 @@ __getblk_gfp(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, free_more_memory(); } } -EXPORT_SYMBOL(__getblk_gfp); + +struct buffer_head *getblk_unmovable(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, + unsigned size) +{ + return __getblk_gfp(bdev, block, size, 0); +} +EXPORT_SYMBOL(getblk_unmovable);
/* * The relationship between dirty buffers and dirty pages: diff --git a/include/linux/buffer_head.h b/include/linux/buffer_head.h index a1d73fd..c5fb4fc 100644 --- a/include/linux/buffer_head.h +++ b/include/linux/buffer_head.h @@ -177,8 +177,8 @@ struct buffer_head *__find_get_block(struct block_device *bdev, s unsigned size); struct buffer_head *__getblk(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, unsigned size); -struct buffer_head *__getblk_gfp(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, - unsigned size, gfp_t gfp); +struct buffer_head *getblk_unmovable(struct block_device *bdev, sector_t block, + unsigned size); void __brelse(struct buffer_head *); void __bforget(struct buffer_head *); void __breadahead(struct block_device *, sector_t block, unsigned int size); @@ -303,9 +303,9 @@ sb_bread(struct super_block *sb, sector_t block) }
static inline struct buffer_head * -sb_bread_gfp(struct super_block *sb, sector_t block, gfp_t gfp) +sb_bread_unmovable(struct super_block *sb, sector_t block) { - return __bread_gfp(sb->s_bdev, block, sb->s_blocksize, gfp); + return __bread_gfp(sb->s_bdev, block, sb->s_blocksize, 0); }
static inline void
Is it better?
Thank you for your advice. -- 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/
| |