From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D1003144D09 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:39:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721320789; cv=none; b=H03PyBAFKCQRZcN/4q+SxtoCITLG0TFYM15/trVCg/eLX2wZ2sPCWUx6t6Nf5x6Us+7YpfoTg6oinYsbXuPmUVgGzspyQ7QqfG8uZoxiiyp3HDmpDPjJ7CAL+EvsoiRrHnj4p8EMfnoEUOn7/qbRTX2rbVptx/pHbd8W026uetU= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1721320789; c=relaxed/simple; bh=EX6DHg0HYzT6jM5lxBj4cnz+dPlc+x116RSdrsqJwvg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=mIG20J/pkrGY3yWnIMwRV85+kZR+rYGxUVzcVBfWlj+1/LI3MwVwgoq18dHaQtYwttzIjaXsCWFfRbhG5EBPmx4nPvuVCBlw0ASSAFcNEMIlSva1d8W/4BADVqICvXY02xxGLVU5kV9wsAs1ULO6pgId3jYMAJ4W7lXfA/gvu9k= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=bUm0sJBM; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.133.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="bUm0sJBM" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1721320786; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=mro/2ws3n8wrTIO9avQDlSTjl3ysAKkxCf8Y1r35j9Y=; b=bUm0sJBMtoHXu1yi8r30T7uNRTifTfR1YTyHm60CgMndMAmECzZ+2t1IXvenP5ACBTlvU2 FnYYnSTh0RY4vK/jE00SOPLLXCtDG/d4bYQiSr3/etXMOU61e2v9MKyKzzJtX+Kv42JHll liBfj4JAq4Sv6olqbbkqS+HQturmj9U= Received: from mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-48-8ghOjeQWOHyfXsWUkYnmhA-1; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 12:39:41 -0400 X-MC-Unique: 8ghOjeQWOHyfXsWUkYnmhA-1 Received: from mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BF2E1955D58; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:39:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bfoster (unknown [10.22.16.39]) by mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0C2A3000189; Thu, 18 Jul 2024 16:39:38 +0000 (UTC) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2024 12:40:20 -0400 From: Brian Foster To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Josef Bacik , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] iomap: zero dirty folios over unwritten mappings on zero range Message-ID: References: <20240718130212.23905-1-bfoster@redhat.com> <20240718153613.GC2099026@perftesting> <20240718160202.GL612460@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240718160202.GL612460@frogsfrogsfrogs> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.4 On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 09:02:02AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 11:36:13AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > On Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 09:02:08AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > This is a stab at fixing the iomap zero range problem where it doesn't > > > correctly handle the case of an unwritten mapping with dirty pagecache. > > > The gist is that we scan the mapping for dirty cache, zero any > > > already-dirty folios via buffered writes as normal, but then otherwise > > > skip clean ranges once we have a chance to validate those ranges against > > > races with writeback or reclaim. > > > > > > This is somewhat simplistic in terms of how it scans, but that is > > > intentional based on the existing use cases for zero range. From poking > > > around a bit, my current sense is that there isn't any user of zero > > > range that would ever expect to see more than a single dirty folio. Most > > > callers either straddle the EOF folio or flush in higher level code for > > > presumably (fs) context specific reasons. If somebody has an example to > > > the contrary, please let me know because I'd love to be able to use it > > > for testing. > > > > > > The caveat to this approach is that it only works for filesystems that > > > implement folio_ops->iomap_valid(), which is currently just XFS. GFS2 > > > doesn't use ->iomap_valid() and does call zero range, but AFAICT it > > > doesn't actually export unwritten mappings so I suspect this is not a > > > problem. My understanding is that ext4 iomap support is in progress, but > > > I've not yet dug into what that looks like (though I suspect similar to > > > XFS). The concern is mainly that this leaves a landmine for fs that > > > might grow support for unwritten mappings && zero range but not > > > ->iomap_valid(). We'd likely never know zero range was broken for such > > > fs until stale data exposure problems start to materialize. > > > > > > I considered adding a fallback to just add a flush at the top of > > > iomap_zero_range() so at least all future users would be correct, but I > > > wanted to gate that on the absence of ->iomap_valid() and folio_ops > > > isn't provided until iomap_begin() time. I suppose another way around > > > that could be to add a flags param to iomap_zero_range() where the > > > caller could explicitly opt out of a flush, but that's still kind of > > > ugly. I dunno, maybe better than nothing..? > > Or move ->iomap_valid to the iomap ops structure. It's a mapping > predicate, and has nothing to do with folios. > Good idea. That might be an option. > > > So IMO, this raises the question of whether this is just unnecessarily > > > overcomplicated. The KISS principle implies that it would also be > > > perfectly fine to do a conditional "flush and stale" in zero range > > > whenever we see the combination of an unwritten mapping and dirty > > > pagecache (the latter checked before or during ->iomap_begin()). That's > > > simple to implement and AFAICT would work/perform adequately and > > > generically for all filesystems. I have one or two prototypes of this > > > sort of thing if folks want to see it as an alternative. > > I wouldn't mind seeing such a prototype. Start by hoisting the > filemap_write_and_wait_range call to iomap, then adjust it only to do > that if there's dirty pagecache + unwritten mappings? Then get more > complicated from there, and we can decide if we want the increasing > levels of trickiness. > Yeah, exactly. Start with an unconditional flush at the top of iomap_zero_range() (which perhaps also serves as a -stable fix), then replace it with an unconditional dirty cache check and a conditional flush/stale down in zero_iter() (for the dirty+unwritten case). With that false positives from the cache check are less of an issue because the only consequence is basically just a spurious flush. From there, the revalidation approach could be an optional further optimization to avoid the flush entirely, but we'll have to see if it's worth the complexity. I have various experimental patches around that pretty much do the conditional flush thing. I just have to form it into a presentable series. > > I think this is the better approach, otherwise there's another behavior that's > > gated behind having a callback that other filesystems may not know about and > > thus have a gap. > > I think filesystems currently only need to supply an ->iomap_valid > function for pagecache operations because those are the only ones where > we have to maintain consistency between something that isn't locked when > we get the mapping, and the mapping not being locked when we lock that > first thing. I suspect they also only need to supply it if they support > unwritten extents. > > From what I can tell, the rest (e.g. directio/FIEMAP) don't care because > callers get to manage concurrency. > > *But* in general it makes sense to me that any iomap operation ought to > be able to revalidate a mapping at any time. > > > Additionally do you have a test for this stale data exposure? I think no matter > > what the solution it would be good to have a test for this so that we can make > > sure we're all doing the correct thing with zero range. Thanks, > > I was also curious about this. IIRC we have some tests for the > validiting checking itself, but I don't recall if there's a specific > regression test for the eofblock clearing. > Err.. yeah. I have some random test sequences around that reproduce some of these issues. I'll form them into an fstest to go along with this. Thank you both for the feedback. Brian > --D > > > Josef > > >