linux-f2fs-devel.lists.sourceforge.net archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2 RFC] f2fs: fix to force keeping write barrier for strict fsync mode
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2021 16:34:50 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YO4jGkKLQWZKrgny@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55e069f7-662d-630c-1201-d0163b38bc17@kernel.org>

On 07/13, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2021/7/8 1:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/02, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > On 2021/7/2 9:32, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > On 07/02, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > On 2021/7/2 1:10, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > > On 06/01, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > > > [1] https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net/msg15126.html
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > As [1] reported, if lower device doesn't support write barrier, in below
> > > > > > > case:
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > - write page #0; persist
> > > > > > > - overwrite page #0
> > > > > > > - fsync
> > > > > > >     - write data page #0 OPU into device's cache
> > > > > > >     - write inode page into device's cache
> > > > > > >     - issue flush
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Well, we have preflush for node writes, so I don't think this is the case.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >     fio.op_flags |= REQ_PREFLUSH | REQ_FUA;
> > > > > 
> > > > > This is only used for atomic write case, right?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I mean the common case which is called from f2fs_issue_flush() in
> > > > > f2fs_do_sync_file().
> > > > 
> > > > How about adding PREFLUSH when writing node blocks aligned to the above set?
> > > 
> > > You mean implementation like v1 as below?
> > > 
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-f2fs-devel/20200120100045.70210-1-yuchao0@huawei.com/
> > 
> > Yea, I think so. :P
> 
> I prefer v2, we may have several schemes to improve performance with v2, e.g.
> - use inplace IO to avoid newly added preflush
> - use flush_merge option to avoid redundant preflush
> - if lower device supports barrier IO, we can avoid newly added preflush

Doesn't v2 give one more flush than v1? Why do you want to take worse one and
try to improve back? Not clear the benefit on v2.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > And please see do_checkpoint(), we call f2fs_flush_device_cache() and
> > > > > commit_checkpoint() separately to keep persistence order of CP datas.
> > > > > 
> > > > > See commit 46706d5917f4 ("f2fs: flush cp pack except cp pack 2 page at first")
> > > > > for details.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > If SPO is triggered during flush command, inode page can be persisted
> > > > > > > before data page #0, so that after recovery, inode page can be recovered
> > > > > > > with new physical block address of data page #0, however there may
> > > > > > > contains dummy data in new physical block address.
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Then what user will see is: after overwrite & fsync + SPO, old data in
> > > > > > > file was corrupted, if any user do care about such case, we can suggest
> > > > > > > user to use STRICT fsync mode, in this mode, we will force to trigger
> > > > > > > preflush command to persist data in device cache in prior to node
> > > > > > > writeback, it avoids potential data corruption during fsync().
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > v2:
> > > > > > > - fix this by adding additional preflush command rather than using
> > > > > > > atomic write flow.
> > > > > > >     fs/f2fs/file.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > > > > > >     1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > 
> > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> > > > > > > index 7d5311d54f63..238ca2a733ac 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> > > > > > > @@ -301,6 +301,20 @@ static int f2fs_do_sync_file(struct file *file, loff_t start, loff_t end,
> > > > > > >     				f2fs_exist_written_data(sbi, ino, UPDATE_INO))
> > > > > > >     			goto flush_out;
> > > > > > >     		goto out;
> > > > > > > +	} else {
> > > > > > > +		/*
> > > > > > > +		 * for OPU case, during fsync(), node can be persisted before
> > > > > > > +		 * data when lower device doesn't support write barrier, result
> > > > > > > +		 * in data corruption after SPO.
> > > > > > > +		 * So for strict fsync mode, force to trigger preflush to keep
> > > > > > > +		 * data/node write order to avoid potential data corruption.
> > > > > > > +		 */
> > > > > > > +		if (F2FS_OPTION(sbi).fsync_mode == FSYNC_MODE_STRICT &&
> > > > > > > +								!atomic) {
> > > > > > > +			ret = f2fs_issue_flush(sbi, inode->i_ino);
> > > > > > > +			if (ret)
> > > > > > > +				goto out;
> > > > > > > +		}
> > > > > > >     	}
> > > > > > >     go_write:
> > > > > > >     	/*
> > > > > > > -- 
> > > > > > > 2.29.2


_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-13 23:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-06-01 10:10 [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2 RFC] f2fs: fix to force keeping write barrier for strict fsync mode Chao Yu
2021-06-03 16:00 ` Chao Yu
2021-06-07 23:32   ` Chao Yu
2021-07-01 17:10 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2021-07-01 23:04   ` Chao Yu
2021-07-02  1:32     ` Jaegeuk Kim
2021-07-02 15:49       ` Chao Yu
2021-07-07 17:48         ` Jaegeuk Kim
2021-07-13  9:23           ` Chao Yu
2021-07-13 23:34             ` Jaegeuk Kim [this message]
2021-07-14  1:15               ` Chao Yu
2021-07-14  2:19                 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2021-07-14  2:51                   ` Chao Yu
2021-07-19 18:38                     ` Jaegeuk Kim

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=YO4jGkKLQWZKrgny@google.com \
    --to=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
    --cc=chao@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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).