From: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6] ext4: Add statx support for atomic writes
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2024 23:15:55 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87o738m5yk.fsf@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241025160942.GJ2386201@frogsfrogsfrogs>
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 03:38:03PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
>> John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com> writes:
>>
>> > On 25/10/2024 04:45, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote:
>> >> This patch adds base support for atomic writes via statx getattr.
>> >> On bs < ps systems, we can create FS with say bs of 16k. That means
>> >> both atomic write min and max unit can be set to 16k for supporting
>> >> atomic writes.
>> >>
>> >> Later patches adds support for bigalloc as well so that ext4 can also
>> >> support doing atomic writes for bs = ps systems.
>> >>
>> >> Co-developed-by: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>
>> >> Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
>> >> ---
>> >> fs/ext4/ext4.h | 7 ++++++-
>> >> fs/ext4/inode.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>> >> fs/ext4/super.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> >> 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >>
>> >> diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4.h b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
>> >> index 44b0d418143c..a41e56c2c628 100644
>> >> --- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h
>> >> +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
>> >> @@ -1729,6 +1729,10 @@ struct ext4_sb_info {
>> >> */
>> >> struct work_struct s_sb_upd_work;
>> >>
>> >> + /* Atomic write unit values */
>> >> + unsigned int fs_awu_min;
>> >> + unsigned int fs_awu_max;
>> >> +
>> >> /* Ext4 fast commit sub transaction ID */
>> >> atomic_t s_fc_subtid;
>> >>
>> >> @@ -1820,7 +1824,8 @@ static inline int ext4_valid_inum(struct super_block *sb, unsigned long ino)
>> >> */
>> >> enum {
>> >> EXT4_MF_MNTDIR_SAMPLED,
>> >> - EXT4_MF_FC_INELIGIBLE /* Fast commit ineligible */
>> >> + EXT4_MF_FC_INELIGIBLE, /* Fast commit ineligible */
>> >> + EXT4_MF_ATOMIC_WRITE /* Supports atomic write */
>> >
>> > Does this flag really buy us much?
>> >
>>
>> I felt it is cleaner this way than comparing non-zero values of
>> fs_awu_min and fs_awu_max.
>
> What does it mean when MF_ATOMIC_WRITE is set and fs_awu_* are zero?
> The awu values don't change at runtime, so I think you can save yourself
> an atomic test by checking (non-atomically) for awu_min>0.
Sure. I agree with the reasoning that we can just check for awu_min > 0.
I can write an inline helper for this.
>
> (I don't know anything about the flags, those came after my time iirc.)
>
Thanks for the review :)
-ritesh
> --D
>
>> Now that you pointed at it - Maybe a question for others who might have
>> the history of which one to use when - or do we think there is a scope
>> of merging the two into just one as a later cleanup?
>>
>> I know that s_mount_flags was added for fastcommit and it needed the
>> state manipulations to be done in atomic way. Similarly s_ext4_flags
>> also was renamed from s_resize_flags for more general purpose use. Both
>> of these looks like could be merged isn't it?
>>
>>
>>
>> >> };
>> >>
>> >> static inline void ext4_set_mount_flag(struct super_block *sb, int bit)
>> >> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
>> >> index 54bdd4884fe6..897c028d5bc9 100644
>> >> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
>> >> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
>> >> @@ -5578,6 +5578,20 @@ int ext4_getattr(struct mnt_idmap *idmap, const struct path *path,
>> >> }
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> + if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode) && (request_mask & STATX_WRITE_ATOMIC)) {
>> >> + struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(inode->i_sb);
>> >> + unsigned int awu_min, awu_max;
>> >> +
>> >> + if (ext4_test_mount_flag(inode->i_sb, EXT4_MF_ATOMIC_WRITE)) {
>> >
>> > I'd use ext4_inode_can_atomicwrite() here, similar to what is done for xfs
>> >
>>
>> Sure since it is inode operation, we can check against ext4_inode_can_atomicwrite().
>>
>>
>> >> + awu_min = sbi->fs_awu_min;
>> >> + awu_max = sbi->fs_awu_max;
>> >> + } else {
>> >> + awu_min = awu_max = 0;
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> + generic_fill_statx_atomic_writes(stat, awu_min, awu_max);
>> >> + }
>> >> +
>> >> flags = ei->i_flags & EXT4_FL_USER_VISIBLE;
>> >> if (flags & EXT4_APPEND_FL)
>> >> stat->attributes |= STATX_ATTR_APPEND;
>> >> diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
>> >> index 16a4ce704460..f5c075aff060 100644
>> >> --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
>> >> +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
>> >> @@ -4425,6 +4425,37 @@ static int ext4_handle_clustersize(struct super_block *sb)
>> >> return 0;
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >> +/*
>>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-25 17:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-25 3:45 [PATCH 0/6] ext4: Add atomic write support for DIO Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2024-10-25 3:45 ` [PATCH 1/6] ext4: Add statx support for atomic writes Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2024-10-25 9:41 ` John Garry
2024-10-25 10:08 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-10-25 16:09 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-10-25 17:45 ` Ritesh Harjani [this message]
2024-10-25 3:45 ` [PATCH 2/6] ext4: Check for atomic writes support in write iter Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2024-10-25 9:44 ` John Garry
2024-10-25 10:33 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-10-25 16:11 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-10-25 17:50 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-10-25 3:45 ` [PATCH 3/6] ext4: Support setting FMODE_CAN_ATOMIC_WRITE Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2024-10-25 3:45 ` [PATCH 4/6] ext4: Warn if we ever fallback to buffered-io for DIO atomic writes Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2024-10-25 16:16 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-10-25 17:51 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-10-27 22:26 ` Dave Chinner
2024-10-28 1:09 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-10-28 5:26 ` Dave Chinner
2024-10-28 8:43 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-10-28 18:14 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-10-29 22:29 ` Dave Chinner
2024-10-29 23:51 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-10-25 3:45 ` [PATCH 5/6] iomap: Lift blocksize restriction on " Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2024-10-25 8:52 ` John Garry
2024-10-25 9:31 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-10-25 9:59 ` John Garry
2024-10-25 10:35 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-10-25 11:07 ` John Garry
2024-10-25 11:19 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-10-25 12:23 ` John Garry
2024-10-25 12:36 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-10-25 14:04 ` John Garry
2024-10-25 14:13 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-10-25 18:28 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-10-26 4:35 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-10-31 21:36 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-11-04 1:52 ` Dave Chinner
2024-11-05 0:09 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-10-25 3:45 ` [PATCH 6/6] ext4: Add atomic write support for bigalloc Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
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=87o738m5yk.fsf@gmail.com \
--to=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--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=ojaswin@linux.ibm.com \
--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).