From: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
To: brauner@kernel.org, djwong@kernel.org, hch@lst.de,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.cz, cem@kernel.org
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, dchinner@redhat.com,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
ojaswin@linux.ibm.com, ritesh.list@gmail.com,
martin.petersen@oracle.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, catherine.hoang@oracle.com,
John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
Subject: [PATCH v6 08/12] xfs: add large atomic writes checks in xfs_direct_write_iomap_begin()
Date: Tue, 8 Apr 2025 10:42:05 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20250408104209.1852036-9-john.g.garry@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250408104209.1852036-1-john.g.garry@oracle.com>
For when large atomic writes (> 1x FS block) are supported, there will be
various occasions when HW offload may not be possible.
Such instances include:
- unaligned extent mapping wrt write length
- extent mappings which do not cover the full write, e.g. the write spans
sparse or mixed-mapping extents
- the write length is greater than HW offload can support
In those cases, we need to fallback to the CoW-based atomic write mode. For
this, report special code -ENOPROTOOPT to inform the caller that HW
offload-based method is not possible.
In addition to the occasions mentioned, if the write covers an unallocated
range, we again judge that we need to rely on the CoW-based method when we
would need to allocate anything more than 1x block. This is because if we
allocate less blocks that is required for the write, then again HW
offload-based method would not be possible. So we are taking a pessimistic
approach to writes covering unallocated space.
Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
---
fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c | 65 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 63 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
index fab5078bbf00..c6b5fb824f8b 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
@@ -798,6 +798,41 @@ imap_spans_range(
return true;
}
+static bool
+xfs_bmap_hw_atomic_write_possible(
+ struct xfs_inode *ip,
+ struct xfs_bmbt_irec *imap,
+ xfs_fileoff_t offset_fsb,
+ xfs_fileoff_t end_fsb)
+{
+ struct xfs_mount *mp = ip->i_mount;
+ xfs_fsize_t len = XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, end_fsb - offset_fsb);
+
+ /*
+ * atomic writes are required to be naturally aligned for disk blocks,
+ * which ensures that we adhere to block layer rules that we won't
+ * straddle any boundary or violate write alignment requirement.
+ */
+ if (!IS_ALIGNED(imap->br_startblock, imap->br_blockcount))
+ return false;
+
+ /*
+ * Spanning multiple extents would mean that multiple BIOs would be
+ * issued, and so would lose atomicity required for REQ_ATOMIC-based
+ * atomics.
+ */
+ if (!imap_spans_range(imap, offset_fsb, end_fsb))
+ return false;
+
+ /*
+ * The ->iomap_begin caller should ensure this, but check anyway.
+ */
+ if (len > xfs_inode_buftarg(ip)->bt_bdev_awu_max)
+ return false;
+
+ return true;
+}
+
static int
xfs_direct_write_iomap_begin(
struct inode *inode,
@@ -812,9 +847,11 @@ xfs_direct_write_iomap_begin(
struct xfs_bmbt_irec imap, cmap;
xfs_fileoff_t offset_fsb = XFS_B_TO_FSBT(mp, offset);
xfs_fileoff_t end_fsb = xfs_iomap_end_fsb(mp, offset, length);
+ xfs_fileoff_t orig_end_fsb = end_fsb;
int nimaps = 1, error = 0;
bool shared = false;
u16 iomap_flags = 0;
+ bool needs_alloc;
unsigned int lockmode;
u64 seq;
@@ -875,13 +912,37 @@ xfs_direct_write_iomap_begin(
(flags & IOMAP_DIRECT) || IS_DAX(inode));
if (error)
goto out_unlock;
- if (shared)
+ if (shared) {
+ if ((flags & IOMAP_ATOMIC) &&
+ !xfs_bmap_hw_atomic_write_possible(ip, &cmap,
+ offset_fsb, end_fsb)) {
+ error = -ENOPROTOOPT;
+ goto out_unlock;
+ }
goto out_found_cow;
+ }
end_fsb = imap.br_startoff + imap.br_blockcount;
length = XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, end_fsb) - offset;
}
- if (imap_needs_alloc(inode, flags, &imap, nimaps))
+ needs_alloc = imap_needs_alloc(inode, flags, &imap, nimaps);
+
+ if (flags & IOMAP_ATOMIC) {
+ error = -ENOPROTOOPT;
+ /*
+ * If we allocate less than what is required for the write
+ * then we may end up with multiple extents, which means that
+ * REQ_ATOMIC-based cannot be used, so avoid this possibility.
+ */
+ if (needs_alloc && orig_end_fsb - offset_fsb > 1)
+ goto out_unlock;
+
+ if (!xfs_bmap_hw_atomic_write_possible(ip, &imap, offset_fsb,
+ orig_end_fsb))
+ goto out_unlock;
+ }
+
+ if (needs_alloc)
goto allocate_blocks;
/*
--
2.31.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-04-08 10:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-04-08 10:41 [PATCH v6 00/12] large atomic writes for xfs John Garry
2025-04-08 10:41 ` [PATCH v6 01/12] fs: add atomic write unit max opt to statx John Garry
2025-04-09 2:23 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-09 10:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-04-08 10:41 ` [PATCH v6 02/12] xfs: add helpers to compute log item overhead John Garry
2025-04-08 22:50 ` Dave Chinner
2025-04-08 23:21 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-09 2:25 ` [PATCH v6.1 " Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-09 2:25 ` [PATCH v6.1 RFC 02.1/12] xfs: add helpers to compute transaction reservation for finishing intent items Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-08 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 03/12] xfs: rename xfs_inode_can_atomicwrite() -> xfs_inode_can_hw_atomicwrite() John Garry
2025-04-09 2:02 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-09 10:46 ` Christoph Hellwig
2025-04-08 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 04/12] xfs: allow block allocator to take an alignment hint John Garry
2025-04-08 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 05/12] xfs: refactor xfs_reflink_end_cow_extent() John Garry
2025-04-08 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 06/12] xfs: refine atomic write size check in xfs_file_write_iter() John Garry
2025-04-08 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 07/12] xfs: add xfs_atomic_write_cow_iomap_begin() John Garry
2025-04-08 10:42 ` John Garry [this message]
2025-04-08 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 09/12] xfs: commit CoW-based atomic writes atomically John Garry
2025-04-08 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 10/12] xfs: add xfs_file_dio_write_atomic() John Garry
2025-04-08 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 11/12] xfs: add xfs_compute_atomic_write_unit_max() John Garry
2025-04-08 21:28 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-08 22:47 ` Dave Chinner
2025-04-09 0:41 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-09 5:30 ` Dave Chinner
2025-04-09 8:15 ` John Garry
2025-04-09 22:49 ` Dave Chinner
2025-04-10 8:58 ` John Garry
2025-04-09 23:46 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-04-08 10:42 ` [PATCH v6 12/12] xfs: update atomic write limits John Garry
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=20250408104209.1852036-9-john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--to=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=catherine.hoang@oracle.com \
--cc=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=ojaswin@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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