From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@openvz.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, lczerner@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] ext4: completed_io locking cleanup V4
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 13:11:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121002111106.GB22777@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87r4phb0q5.fsf@openvz.org>
On Tue 02-10-12 14:57:22, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Oct 2012 12:31:41 +0200, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
> > On Tue 02-10-12 11:16:38, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&ei->i_completed_io_lock, flags);
> > > > > + while (!list_empty(&complete)) {
> > > > > + io = list_entry(complete.next, ext4_io_end_t, list);
> > > > > + io->flag &= ~EXT4_IO_END_UNWRITTEN;
> > > > > + /* end_io context can not be destroyed now because it still
> > > > > + * used by queued worker. Worker thread will destroy it later */
> > > > > + if (io->flag & EXT4_IO_END_QUEUED)
> > > > > + list_del_init(&io->list);
> > > > > + else
> > > > > + list_move(&io->list, &to_free);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + /* If we are called from worker context, it is time to clear queued
> > > > > + * flag, and destroy it's end_io if it was converted already */
> > > > > + if (work_io) {
> > > > > + work_io->flag &= ~EXT4_IO_END_QUEUED;
> > > > > + if (!(work_io->flag & EXT4_IO_END_UNWRITTEN))
> > > > > + list_add_tail(&work_io->list, &to_free);
> > > > > }
> > > > > - list_del_init(&io->list);
> > > > > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ei->i_completed_io_lock, flags);
> > > > > - (void) ext4_end_io_nolock(io);
> > > > > - mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
> > > > > -free:
> > > > > - ext4_free_io_end(io);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + while (!list_empty(&to_free)) {
> > > > > + io = list_entry(to_free.next, ext4_io_end_t, list);
> > > > > + list_del_init(&io->list);
> > > > > + ext4_free_io_end(io);
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * work on completed aio dio IO, to convert unwritten extents to extents
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +static void ext4_end_io_work(struct work_struct *work)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + ext4_io_end_t *io = container_of(work, ext4_io_end_t, work);
> > > > > + ext4_do_flush_completed_IO(io->inode, io);
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +int ext4_flush_completed_IO(struct inode *inode)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + return ext4_do_flush_completed_IO(inode, NULL);
> > > > > }
> > > > Also it seems that when ext4_flush_completed_IO() is called, workqueue
> > > > can have several IO structures queued in its local lists thus we miss them
> > > > here and don't properly wait for all conversions?
> > > No it is not. Because list drained atomically, and
> > > add_complete_io will queue work only if list is empty.
> > >
> > > Race between conversion and dequeue-process is not possible because
> > > we hold lock during entire walk of complete_list, so from external
> > > point of view we mark list as conversed(clear unwritten flag)
> > > happens atomically. I've drawn all possible situations and race not
> > > happen. If you know any please let me know.
> > I guess I'm missing something obvious. So let's go step by step:
> > 1) ext4_flush_completed_IO() must make sure there is no outstanding
> > conversion for the inode.
> > 2) Now assume we have non-empty i_completed_io_list - thus work is queued.
> > 3) The following situation seems to be possible:
> >
> > CPU1 CPU2
> > (worker thread) (truncate)
> > ext4_end_io_work()
> > ext4_do_flush_completed_IO()
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&ei->i_completed_io_lock, flags);
> > dump_completed_IO(inode);
> > list_replace_init(&ei->i_completed_io_list, &unwritten);
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ei->i_completed_io_lock, flags);
> >
> > ext4_flush_completed_IO()
> > ext4_do_flush_completed_IO()
> > - sees empty i_completed_io_list
> > => exits
> >
> > But we still have some conversions pending in 'unwritten' list. What am
> > I missing?
> Indeed, I've simply missed that case. The case which result silently
> broke integrity sync ;(
> Thank you for spotting this. I'll be back with updated version.
Umm, actually, I was thinking about it and ext4_flush_completed_IO()
seems to be unnecessary in fsync these days. We don't call aio_complete()
until we perform the conversion so what fsync does to such IO is undefined.
Such optimization is a separate matter though.
But for truncate or punch hole, it is critical that all conversions are
really flushed.
Honza
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-10-02 11:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-09-28 15:44 [PATCH 00/11] ext4: Bunch of DIO/AIO fixes V4 Dmitry Monakhov
2012-09-28 15:44 ` [PATCH 01/11] ext4: ext4_inode_info diet Dmitry Monakhov
2012-10-01 16:28 ` Jan Kara
2012-09-28 15:44 ` [PATCH 02/11] ext4: give i_aiodio_unwritten more appropriate name Dmitry Monakhov
2012-09-28 15:44 ` [PATCH 03/11] ext4: fix unwritten counter leakage Dmitry Monakhov
2012-10-01 16:37 ` Jan Kara
2012-09-28 15:44 ` [PATCH 04/11] ext4: completed_io locking cleanup V4 Dmitry Monakhov
2012-10-01 18:38 ` Jan Kara
2012-10-02 7:16 ` Dmitry Monakhov
2012-10-02 10:31 ` Jan Kara
2012-10-02 10:57 ` Dmitry Monakhov
2012-10-02 11:11 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2012-10-02 12:42 ` Dmitry Monakhov
2012-10-02 13:30 ` Jan Kara
2012-10-03 11:21 ` Dmitry Monakhov
2012-10-04 10:22 ` Jan Kara
2012-09-28 15:44 ` [PATCH 05/11] ext4: remove ext4_end_io() Dmitry Monakhov
2012-10-04 22:57 ` Anatol Pomozov
2012-10-05 4:28 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-09-28 15:44 ` [PATCH 06/11] ext4: serialize dio nonlocked reads with defrag workers V3 Dmitry Monakhov
2012-10-01 16:39 ` Jan Kara
2012-09-28 15:44 ` [PATCH 07/11] ext4: serialize unlocked dio reads with truncate Dmitry Monakhov
2012-09-29 4:49 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-09-29 11:43 ` Dmitry Monakhov
2012-09-28 15:44 ` [PATCH 08/11] ext4: endless truncate due to nonlocked dio readers V2 Dmitry Monakhov
2012-10-01 16:41 ` Jan Kara
2012-09-28 15:44 ` [PATCH 09/11] ext4: serialize truncate with owerwrite DIO workers V2 Dmitry Monakhov
2012-09-28 15:44 ` [PATCH 10/11] ext4: punch_hole should wait for DIO writers V2 Dmitry Monakhov
2012-10-01 16:46 ` Jan Kara
2012-09-28 15:44 ` [PATCH 11/11] ext4: fix ext_remove_space for punch_hole case Dmitry Monakhov
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=20121002111106.GB22777@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=dmonakhov@openvz.org \
--cc=lczerner@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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).