Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] readv.2: Document RWF_ATOMIC flag

John Garry
2024-07-18T14:08:34Z

On 17/07/2024 22:44, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 09:36:18AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> From: Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@oracle.com>
>>
>> Add RWF_ATOMIC flag description for pwritev2().
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Himanshu Madhani <himanshu.madhani@oracle.com>
>> [jpg: complete rewrite]
>> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
>> ---
>> man/man2/readv.2 | 76 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 76 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/man/man2/readv.2 b/man/man2/readv.2
>> index eecde06dc..9c8a11324 100644
>> --- a/man/man2/readv.2
>> +++ b/man/man2/readv.2
>> @@ -193,6 +193,66 @@ which provides lower latency, but may use additional resources.
>> .B O_DIRECT
>> flag.)
>> .TP
>> +.BR RWF_ATOMIC " (since Linux 6.11)"
>> +Requires that writes to regular files in block-based filesystems be issued with
>> +torn-write protection.
>> +Torn-write protection means that for a power or any other hardware failure,
>> +all or none of the data from the write will be stored,
>> +but never a mix of old and new data.
>> +This flag is meaningful only for
>> +.BR pwritev2 (),
>> +and its effect applies only to the data range written by the system call.
>> +The total write length must be power-of-2 and must be sized in the range
>> +.RI [ stx_atomic_write_unit_min ,
>> +.IR stx_atomic_write_unit_max ].
>> +The write must be at a naturally-aligned offset within the file with respect to
>> +the total write length -
>> +for example,
>
> Nit: these could be two sentences
>
> "The write must be at a naturally-aligned offset within the file with
> respect to the total write length. For example, ..."

ok, sure

>
>> +a write of length 32KB at a file offset of 32KB is permitted,
>> +however a write of length 32KB at a file offset of 48KB is not permitted.
>
> Pickier nit: KiB, not KB.

ok

>
>> +The upper limit of
>> +.I iovcnt
>> +for
>> +.BR pwritev2 ()
>> +is in
>
> "is given by" ?

ok, fine, I don't mind

>
>> +.I stx_atomic_write_segments_max.
>> +Torn-write protection only works with
>> +.B O_DIRECT
>> +flag, i.e. buffered writes are not supported.
>> +To guarantee consistency from the write between a file's in-core state with the
>> +storage device,
>> +.BR fdatasync (2),
>> +or
>> +.BR fsync (2),
>> +or
>> +.BR open (2)
>> +and either
>> +.B O_SYNC
>> +or
>> +.B O_DSYNC,
>> +or
>> +.B pwritev2 ()
>> +and either
>> +.B RWF_SYNC
>> +or
>> +.B RWF_DSYNC
>> +is required. Flags
>
> This sentence ^^ should start on a new line.

yes

>
>> +.B O_SYNC
>> +or
>> +.B RWF_SYNC
>> +provide the strongest guarantees for
>> +.BR RWF_ATOMIC,
>> +in that all data and also file metadata updates will be persisted for a
>> +successfully completed write.
>> +Just using either flags
>> +.B O_DSYNC
>> +or
>> +.B RWF_DSYNC
>> +means that all data and any file updates will be persisted for a successfully
>> +completed write.
>

ughh, this is hard to word both concisely and accurately...

> "any file updates" ? I /think/ the difference between O_SYNC and
> O_DSYNC is that O_DSYNC persists all data and file metadata updates for
> the file range that was written, whereas O_SYNC persists all data and
> file metadata updates for the entire file.

I think that https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man2/open.2.html#NOTES
describes it best.

>
> Perhaps everything between "Flags O_SYNC or RWF_SYNC..." and "...for a
> successfully completed write." should instead refer readers to the notes
> about synchronized I/O flags in the openat manpage?

Maybe that would be better, but we just need to make it clear that
RWF_ATOMIC provides the guarantee that the data is atomically updated
only in addition to whatever guarantee we have for metadata updates from
O_SYNC/O_DSYNC.

So maybe:
RWF_ATOMIC provides the guarantee that any data is written with
torn-write protection, and additional flags O_SYNC or O_DSYNC provide
same Synchronized I/O guarantees as documented in <openat manpage reference>

OK?

>
>> +Not using any sync flags means that there is no guarantee that data or
>> +filesystem updates are persisted.
>> +.TP
>> .BR RWF_SYNC " (since Linux 4.7)"
>> .\" commit e864f39569f4092c2b2bc72c773b6e486c7e3bd9
>> Provide a per-write equivalent of the
>> @@ -279,10 +339,26 @@ values overflows an
>> .I ssize_t
>> value.
>> .TP
>> +.B EINVAL
>> + For
>> +.BR RWF_ATOMIC
>> +set,
>
> "If RWF_ATOMIC is specified..." ?
>
> (to be a bit more consistent with the language around the AT_* flags in
> openat)

ok, fine

>
>> +the combination of the sum of the
>> +.I iov_len
>> +values and the
>> +.I offset
>> +value does not comply with the length and offset torn-write protection rules.
>> +.TP
>> .B EINVAL
>> The vector count,
>> .IR iovcnt ,
>> is less than zero or greater than the permitted maximum.
>> +For
>> +.BR RWF_ATOMIC
>> +set, this maximum is in
>
> (same)
>
> --D
>

Thanks for checking,
John