Re: [PATCH v4 00/14] forcealign for xfs

[John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>]

>> * I guess that you had not been following the recent discussion on this
>> topic in the latest xfs atomic writes series @ https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20240817094800.776408-1-john.g.garry@oracle.com/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!JIzCbkyp3JuPyzBx1n80WAdog5rLxMRB65FYrs1sFf3ei-wOdqrU_DZBE5zwrJXhrj949HSE0TwOEV0ciu8$
>> and also mentioned earlier in
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20240726171358.GA27612@lst.de/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!JIzCbkyp3JuPyzBx1n80WAdog5rLxMRB65FYrs1sFf3ei-wOdqrU_DZBE5zwrJXhrj949HSE0TwOiiEnYSk$
>>
>> There I dropped the sub-alloc unit zeroing. The concept to iter for a single
>> bio seems sane, but as Darrick mentioned, we have issue of non-atomically
>> committing all the extent conversions.
> 
> Yes, I understand these problems exist.  My entire point is that the
> forced alignment implemention should never allow such unaligned
> extent patterns to be created in the first place. If we avoid
> creating such situations in the first place, then we never have to
> care about about unaligned unwritten extent conversion breaking
> atomic IO.

OK, but what about this situation with non-EOF unaligned extents:

# xfs_io -c "lsattr -v" mnt/file
[extsize, has-xattr, force-align] mnt/file
# xfs_io -c "extsize" mnt/file
[65536] mnt/file
#
# xfs_io  -d -c "pwrite 64k 64k" mnt/file
# xfs_io  -d -c "pwrite 8k 8k" mnt/file
# xfs_bmap -vvp  mnt/file
mnt/file:
EXT: FILE-OFFSET      BLOCK-RANGE      AG AG-OFFSET        TOTAL FLAGS
   0: [0..15]:         384..399          0 (384..399)          16 010000
   1: [16..31]:        400..415          0 (400..415)          16 000000
   2: [32..127]:       416..511          0 (416..511)          96 010000
   3: [128..255]:      256..383          0 (256..383)         128 000000
FLAG Values:
    0010000 Unwritten preallocated extent

Here we have unaligned extents wrt extsize.

The sub-alloc unit zeroing would solve that - is that what you would 
still advocate (to solve that issue)?

> 
> FWIW, I also understand things are different if we are doing 128kB
> atomic writes on 16kB force aligned files. However, in this
> situation we are treating the 128kB atomic IO as eight individual
> 16kB atomic IOs that are physically contiguous.

Yes, if 16kB force aligned, userspace can only issue 16KB atomic writes.

> Hence in this
> situation it doesn't matter if we have a mix of 16kB aligned
> written/unwritten/hole extents as each 16kB chunks is independent of
> the others.

Sure

> 
> What matters is that each indivudal 16kB chunk shows either the old
> data or the new data - we are not guaranteeing that the entire 128kB
> write is atomic. Hence in this situation we can both submit and
> process each 16kB shunk as independent IOs with independent IO
> compeltion transactions. All that matters is that we don't signal
> completion to userspace until all the IO is complete, and we already
> do that for fragmented DIO writes...
> 
>>> Again, this is different to the traditional RT file behaviour - it
>>> can use unwritten extents for sub-alloc-unit alignment unmaps
>>> because the RT device can align file offset to any physical offset,
>>> and issue unaligned sector sized IO without any restrictions. Forced
>>> alignment does not have this freedom, and when we extend forced
>>> alignment to RT files, it will not have the freedom to use
>>> unwritten extents for sub-alloc-unit unmapping, either.
>>>
>> So how do you think that we should actually implement
>> xfs_itruncate_extents_flags() properly for forcealign? Would it simply be
>> like:
>>
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c
>> @@ -1050,7 +1050,7 @@ xfs_itruncate_extents_flags(
>>                  WARN_ON_ONCE(first_unmap_block > XFS_MAX_FILEOFF);
>>                  return 0;
>>          }
>> +	if (xfs_inode_has_forcealign(ip))
>> +	       first_unmap_block = xfs_inode_roundup_alloc_unit(ip,
>> first_unmap_block);
>>          error = xfs_bunmapi_range(&tp, ip, flags, first_unmap_block,
> 
> Yes, it would be something like that, except it would have to be
> done before first_unmap_block is verified.
> 

ok, and are you still of the opinion that this does not apply to rtvol?

Thanks,
John