From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:41216 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1751719AbdATMMa (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Fri, 20 Jan 2017 07:12:30 -0500
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 20:03:47 +0800
From: Eryu Guan <eguan@redhat.com>
To: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
Cc: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        linux-unionfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        fstests <fstests@vger.kernel.org>,
        Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] overlayfs: support freeze/thaw/syncfs
Message-ID: <20170120120347.GX1859@eguan.usersys.redhat.com>
References: <1484828008-27507-1-git-send-email-amir73il@gmail.com>
 <CAOQ4uxjaFRXaHRmZSbBzSCDcL0HnNxCyVevjCPqoOROkse8wGw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ4uxjaFRXaHRmZSbBzSCDcL0HnNxCyVevjCPqoOROkse8wGw@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 10:49:07AM +0200, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 2:13 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Miklos,
> >
> > I implemented freeze/thaw of overlayfs, because I need it for
> > overlay snapshots (CoW decision is made before mnt_wat_write(upper)
> > and I need to serialize it with snapshot take).
> >
> > Not sure if there are other use cases for overlayfs freeze??
> >
> > Tested freeze stress with xfstest generic/068 generic/390.
> >
> > While staring at the code, I realized that syncfs(2) for overlayfs
> > seems broken.  It looks like only inodes are synced and upper fs
> > metadata is not being flushed, but I could be wrong.
> >
> > Tested sync sanity with -g quick (although no test calls syncfs directly).
> > Tested the usual unionmount sanity over xfs and over tmpfs.
> >
> > I am not sure exactly how to write a test case to verify this alleged
> > breakage?
> >
> 
> Well, I have a smoking gun.
> Wrote this xfs specific test, which checks xfs stats after syncfs/fsync:
> https://github.com/amir73il/overlayfs/blob/master/tests/xfs_syncfs.sh
> 
> Good (on xfs 4.10.0-rc4):
> # ./syncfs.sh /base/
> before touch
> xfs_log_force = 375
> after touch
> xfs_log_force = 375
> after syncfs
> xfs_log_force = 376
> after fsync
> xfs_log_force = 376
> after fsync #2
> xfs_log_force = 376
> 
> Bad (on overlayfs 4.10.0-rc4):
> # ./syncfs.sh /mnt
> before touch
> xfs_log_force = 376
> after touch
> xfs_log_force = 376
> after syncfs
> xfs_log_force = 376
> after fsync
> xfs_log_force = 377
> after fsync #2
> xfs_log_force = 377
> 
> Overlayfs syncfs fails to flush the xfs log.
> 
> I'll see if I can put this test into xfstests.
> I am going to need some sort of require_upper_fs_is_xfs
> not sure id it already exists.

There's no such _require rules in xfstests yet.

> 
> If anyone has suggestions how to write this test not xfs specific I
> would be happy to hear.
> Eryu?

Sorry, I have no idea right now..

Eryu
> 
> Also, FYI, xfs_io -c syncfs is broken.
> Going to send a fix patch soon.