linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
Cc: Stefan Behrens <sbehrens@giantdisaster.de>,
	Bob Marley <bobmarley@shiftmail.org>,
	Wang Shilong <wangshilong1991@gmail.com>,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: fix race condition between writting and scrubing supers
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:14:50 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5269D41A.6040802@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5269053F.3050906@cn.fujitsu.com>

On 	thu, 24 Oct 2013 19:32:15 +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
> On 10/24/2013 06:08 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
>> 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.
> Yeah, by joining transaction we can solve this problem, but it is a little confused,
> because we don't involve writting in scrubing supers.
> 
> And the only race condition happens in commiting transaction, Miao also pointed out that
> maybe the best way is to move btrfs_scrub_continue after write_ctree_super().

Sorry, My miss.

btrfs_scrub_continue() is behind write_ctree_super() all the while, so the above problem
doesn't exist.

Thanks
Miao

> 
> Thanks,
> Wang
>> -chris
>> -- 
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 


  reply	other threads:[~2013-10-25  2:13 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
2013-10-24 10:42                 ` Miao Xie
2013-10-24 11:32                 ` Wang Shilong
2013-10-25  2:14                   ` Miao Xie [this message]
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=5269D41A.6040802@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --to=miaox@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=bobmarley@shiftmail.org \
    --cc=chris.mason@fusionio.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sbehrens@giantdisaster.de \
    --cc=wangshilong1991@gmail.com \
    --cc=wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.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).