From: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
To: Stefan Behrens <sbehrens@giantdisaster.de>,
Bob Marley <bobmarley@shiftmail.org>
Cc: Wang Shilong <wangshilong1991@gmail.com>, <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix race condition between writting and scrubing supers
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 06:08:42 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131024100842.14051.45479@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5268059E.707@giantdisaster.de>
Quoting Stefan Behrens (2013-10-23 13:21:34)
> On Tue, 22 Oct 2013 18:55:59 +0200, Bob Marley wrote:
> > On 22/10/2013 10:37, Stefan Behrens wrote:
> >> I don't believe that this issue can ever happen. I don't believe that
> >> somewhere on the path to the flash memory, to the magnetic disc or to
> >> the drive's cache memory, someone interrupts a 4KB write in the middle
> >> of operation to read from this 4KB area. This is not an issue IMHO.
> >
> > I think I have read that unfortunately it can happen.
> > SAS and SATA specs for disks do not mandate that if a write is in-flight
> > but still not completed, reads from the same sector should return the
> > value it is being written; they can return the old value.
> > I also think that Linux does not check either.
>
> If the _old_ 4KB block is returned, that's fine and won't cause a
> checksum error.
>
> The patch in question addresses the case that Btrfs submits a write
> request for a 4KB block, and a concurrent read request for that 4KB
> block reads partially the old block and partially the new block,
> resulting in a checksum error reported in the scrub statistic counters.
Concurrent reads and writes to the device are completely undefined, and
Any combination of old, new, random memory corruption wouldn't
surprise me...I'd rather avoid them ;)
Doing the transaction join during the super read is probably the least
complex choice.
-chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-10-24 10:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-10-19 4:17 [PATCH] Btrfs: fix race condition between writting and scrubing supers Wang Shilong
2013-10-19 8:50 ` Stefan Behrens
2013-10-19 10:32 ` Shilong Wang
2013-10-19 14:03 ` Stefan Behrens
2013-10-19 14:34 ` Wang Shilong
2013-10-20 4:03 ` Wang Shilong
2013-10-22 8:37 ` Stefan Behrens
2013-10-22 16:55 ` Bob Marley
2013-10-23 17:21 ` Stefan Behrens
2013-10-24 10:08 ` Chris Mason [this message]
2013-10-24 10:42 ` Miao Xie
2013-10-24 11:32 ` Wang Shilong
2013-10-25 2:14 ` Miao Xie
2013-10-20 7:28 ` Bob Marley
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20131024100842.14051.45479@localhost.localdomain \
--to=chris.mason@fusionio.com \
--cc=bobmarley@shiftmail.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sbehrens@giantdisaster.de \
--cc=wangshilong1991@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).