Re: [PATCH 0/7] block layer patches for bcachefs

From: Jens Axboe
Date: Tue May 30 2023 - 12:51:05 EST

On 5/30/23 10:06?AM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 08:22:50AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 5/26/23 2:44?PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 08:35:23AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>>> On 5/25/23 3:48?PM, Kent Overstreet wrote:
>>>>> Jens, here's the full series of block layer patches needed for bcachefs:
>>>>> Some of these (added exports, zero_fill_bio_iter?) can probably go with
>>>>> the bcachefs pull and I'm just including here for completeness. The main
>>>>> ones are the bio_iter patches, and the __invalidate_super() patch.
>>>>> The bio_iter series has a new documentation patch.
>>>>> I would still like the __invalidate_super() patch to get some review
>>>>> (from VFS people? unclear who owns this).
>>>> I wanted to check the code generation for patches 4 and 5, but the
>>>> series doesn't seem to apply to current -git nor my for-6.5/block.
>>>> There's no base commit in this cover letter either, so what is this
>>>> against?
>>>> Please send one that applies to for-6.5/block so it's a bit easier
>>>> to take a closer look at this.
>>> Here you go:
>>> git pull block-for-bcachefs
>> Thanks
>> The re-exporting of helpers is somewhat odd - why is bcachefs special
>> here and needs these, while others do not?
> It's not iomap based.
>> But the main issue for me are the iterator changes, which mostly just
>> seems like unnecessary churn. What's the justification for these? The
>> commit messages don;t really have any. Doesn't seem like much of a
>> simplification, and in fact it's more code than before and obviously
>> more stack usage as well.
> I need bio_for_each_folio().
> The approach taken by the bcachefs IO paths is to first build up bios,
> then walk the extents btree to determine where to send them, splitting
> as needed.
> For reading into the page cache we additionally need to initialize our
> private state based on what we're reading from that says what's on
> disk (unallocated, reservation, or normal allocation) and how many
> replicas. This is used for both i_blocks accounting and for deciding
> when we need to get a disk reservation. Since we're doing this post
> split, it needs bio_for_each_folio, not the _all variant.
> Yes, the iterator changes are a bit more code - but it's split up into
> better helpers now, the pointer arithmetic before was a bit dense; I
> found the result to be more readable. I'm surprised at more stack
> usage; I would have expected _less_ for bio_for_each_page_all() since
> it gets rid of a pointer into the bvec_iter_all. How did you measure
> that?

Sorry typo, I meant text. Just checked stack and it looks identical, but
things like blk-map grows ~6% more text, and bio ~3%. Didn't check all
of them, but at least those two are consistent across x86-64 and
aarch64. Ditto on the data front. Need to take a closer look at where
exactly that is coming from, and what that looks like.

Jens Axboe