From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm>,
Sweet Tea Dorminy <sweettea-kernel@dorminy.me>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] FUSE passthrough fixes
Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:57:55 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240407155758.575216-1-amir73il@gmail.com> (raw)
Miklos,
While going over the code to prepare for getattr() passthrough I
experienced a WTF moment that resulted in the two fix patches.
Patch 3/3 is included for reference and to give Sweet Tea a starting
point for getattr() passthrough.
What puzzled me is that some ff->iomode state bugs were so blunt that
I needed to figure out how I did not see any WARN_ON in my tests of rc1.
There are different reasons for different types of bugs.
1. For concurrent dio writes without any passthrough open,
fuse_file_cached_io_start() was supposed to hit
WARN_ON(ff->iomode == IOM_UNCACHED) if there is already a dio write
in-flight.
My conclusion is that the set of fstests that run on passthrough_hp,
on my small test VM do not excercise concurrent dio writes.
2. For dio write, where the file was opened passthrough, every write
was going to hit WARN_ON(ff->iomode == IOM_UNCACHED) and also
fuse_file_cached_io_end() was going to set ff->iomode == IOM_NONE
and leak the fuse_backing object.
However, the bug fixed by patch 2/3 made sure that parallel dio write
would always fallback to exclusive dio if file was open with a backing
file.
Testing:
I ran fstests with passthrough_hp with options:
1) FOPEN_PASSTHROUGH
2) FOPEN_DIRECT_IO | FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES
3) FOPEN_PASSTHROUGH | FOPEN_DIRECT_IO | FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES
Did not observe any regressions (not any improvments) from rc1.
Ran some multi threads aiodio tests with just patch 2/3 and the
assertions in fuse_evict_inode() from patch 3/3.
First two configs did not hit any assertion.
The passthrough+direct_io+parallel_direct_writes config always
hits the assertion in fuse_file_cached_io_start() and always hits
the leaked fuse_backing assertion in fuse_evict_inode().
Bernd do you have different tests to cover concurrent dio writes in
your setup? Any ideas on how to improve the fstests test coverage?
Thanks,
Amir.
Amir Goldstein (3):
fuse: fix wrong ff->iomode state changes from parallel dio write
fuse: fix parallel dio write on file open in passthrough mode
fuse: prepare for long lived reference on backing file
fs/fuse/file.c | 18 +++++++-----
fs/fuse/fuse_i.h | 10 +++++--
fs/fuse/inode.c | 7 +++++
fs/fuse/iomode.c | 73 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
4 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
--
2.34.1
next reply other threads:[~2024-04-07 15:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-07 15:57 Amir Goldstein [this message]
2024-04-07 15:57 ` [PATCH 1/3] fuse: fix wrong ff->iomode state changes from parallel dio write Amir Goldstein
2024-04-09 13:33 ` Miklos Szeredi
2024-04-09 15:10 ` Amir Goldstein
2024-04-09 15:32 ` Miklos Szeredi
2024-04-09 16:18 ` Amir Goldstein
2024-04-13 6:50 ` Amir Goldstein
2024-04-15 8:14 ` Miklos Szeredi
2024-04-07 15:57 ` [PATCH 2/3] fuse: fix parallel dio write on file open in passthrough mode Amir Goldstein
2024-04-07 15:57 ` [PATCH 3/3] fuse: prepare for long lived reference on backing file Amir Goldstein
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=20240407155758.575216-1-amir73il@gmail.com \
--to=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=bernd.schubert@fastmail.fm \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
--cc=sweettea-kernel@dorminy.me \
/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).