Re: [Lsf] Preliminary Agenda and Activities for LSF

[Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 07:28:34AM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
> 
> What possible semantics could you have?
> 
> If you ever write concurrently from multiple processes without
> locking, you clearly are at the mercy of the scheduler and the
> underlying storage which could fragment a single write into multiple
> IO's sent to the backend device.
> 
> I would agree with Dave, let's not make it overly complicated or try
> to give people "atomic" unbounded size writes just because they set
> the O_DIRECT flag :)

I just want to have it written down.  After getting burned with ext3's
semantics promising more than what the standard guaranteed, I've just
gotten paranoid about application programmers getting upset when
things change on them --- and in the case of direct I/O, this stuff
isn't even clearly documented anywhere official.

I just think it's best that we document it the fact that concurrent
DIO's to the same region may result in completely arbitrary behaviour,
make sure it's well publicized to likely users (and I'm more worried
about the open source code bases than Oracle DB), and then call it a day.

The closest place that we have to any official documentation about
O_DIRECT semantics is the open(2) man page in the Linux manpages, and
it doesn't say anything about this.  It does give a recommendation
against not mixing buffered and O_DIRECT accesses to the same file,
but it does promise that things will work in that case.  (Even if it
does, do we really want to make the promise that it will always work?)

In any case, adding some text in that paragraph, or just after that
paragraph, to the effect that two concurrent DIO accesses to the same
file block, even by two different processes will result in undefined
behavior would be a good start.

      	       	      	   	      	     - Ted