|
Define a data structure, struct folio_queue, to represent a sequence of
folios and a kernel-internal I/O iterator type, ITER_FOLIOQ, to allow a
list of folio_queue structures to be used to provide a buffer to
iov_iter-taking functions, such as sendmsg and recvmsg.
The folio_queue structure looks like:
struct folio_queue {
struct folio_batch vec;
u8 orders[PAGEVEC_SIZE];
struct folio_queue *next;
struct folio_queue *prev;
unsigned long marks;
unsigned long marks2;
};
It does not use a list_head so that next and/or prev can be set to NULL at
the ends of the list, allowing iov_iter-handling routines to determine that
they *are* the ends without needing to store a head pointer in the iov_iter
struct.
A folio_batch struct is used to hold the folio pointers which allows the
batch to be passed to batch handling functions. Two mark bits are
available per slot. The intention is to use at least one of them to mark
folios that need putting, but that might not be ultimately necessary.
Accessor functions are used to access the slots to do the masking and an
additional accessor function is used to indicate the size of the array.
The order of each folio is also stored in the structure to avoid the need
for iov_iter_advance() and iov_iter_revert() to have to query each folio to
find its size.
With careful barriering, this can be used as an extending buffer with new
folios inserted and new folio_queue structs added without the need for a
lock. Further, provided we always keep at least one struct in the buffer,
we can also remove consumed folios and consumed structs from the head end
as we without the need for locks.
[Questions/thoughts]
(1) To manage this, I need a head pointer, a tail pointer, a tail slot
number (assuming insertion happens at the tail end and the next
pointers point from head to tail). Should I put these into a struct
of their own, say "folio_queue_head" or "rolling_buffer"?
I will end up with two of these in netfs_io_request eventually, one
keeping track of the pagecache I'm dealing with for buffered I/O and
the other to hold a bounce buffer when we need one.
(2) Should I make the slots {folio,off,len} or bio_vec?
(3) This is intended to replace ITER_XARRAY eventually. Using an xarray
in I/O iteration requires the taking of the RCU read lock, doing
copying under the RCU read lock, walking the xarray (which may change
under us), handling retries and dealing with special values.
The advantage of ITER_XARRAY is that when we're dealing with the
pagecache directly, we don't need any allocation - but if we're doing
encrypted comms, there's a good chance we'd be using a bounce buffer
anyway.
This will require afs, erofs, cifs, orangefs and fscache to be
converted to not use this. afs still uses it for dirs and symlinks;
some of erofs usages should be easy to change, but there's one which
won't be so easy; ceph's use via fscache can be fixed by porting ceph
to netfslib; cifs is using xarray as a bounce buffer - that can be
moved to use sheaves instead; and orangefs has a similar problem to
erofs - maybe orangefs could use netfslib?
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
cc: Steve French <sfrench@samba.org>
cc: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
cc: Gao Xiang <xiang@kernel.org>
cc: Mike Marshall <hubcap@omnibond.com>
cc: netfs@lists.linux.dev
cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
cc: linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
cc: linux-cifs@vger.kernel.org
cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
cc: linux-erofs@lists.ozlabs.org
cc: devel@lists.orangefs.org
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20240814203850.2240469-13-dhowells@redhat.com/ # v2
Signed-off-by: Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>
|
