From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org, meetmehiro@gmail.com,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 50981] generic_file_aio_read ?: No locking means DATA CORRUPTION read and write on same 4096 page range
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 09:17:10 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121126221710.GR32450@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121126214937.GA21590@thunk.org>
On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 04:49:37PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 03:13:08PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 12:05:57PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > Gosh, that's a very sudden new consensus. The consensus over the past
> > > ten or twenty years has been that the Linux kernel enforce locking for
> > > consistent atomic writes, but skip that overhead on reads - hasn't it?
> >
> > I'm not sure there was much of a consensus ever. We XFS people always
> > ttried to push everyone down the strict rule, but there was enough
> > pushback that it didn't actually happen.
>
> Christoph, can you give some kind of estimate for the overhead that
> adding this locking in XFS actually costs in practice?
It doesn't show up any significant numbers in profiles, if that is
what you are asking.
I've tested over random 4k reads and writes at over 2 million IOPS
to a single file using concurrent direct IO, so the non-exclusive
locking overhead is pretty minimal. If the workload is modified
slightly to used buffered writes instead of direct IO writes and so
triggering shared/exclusive lock contention, then the same workload
tends to get limited at around 250,000 IOPS per file. That's a
direct result of the exclusive locking limiting the workload to what
a single CPU can sustain (i.e difference between 8p @ 250-300k iops
vs 1p @ 250k iops on the exclusive locking workload).
> And does XFS
> provide any kind of consistency guarantees if the reads/write overlap
> spans multiple pages? I assume the answer to that is no, correct?
A buffered write is locked exclusive for the entire of the write.
That includes multiple page writes as the locking is outside of
the begin_write/end_write per-page iteration. Hence the atomicity of
the entire buffered write against both buffered read and direct IO
is guaranteed.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-26 22:17 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <bug-50981-5823@https.bugzilla.kernel.org/>
[not found] ` <20121126163328.ACEB011FE9C@bugzilla.kernel.org>
2012-11-26 16:45 ` [Bug 50981] generic_file_aio_read ?: No locking means DATA CORRUPTION read and write on same 4096 page range Theodore Ts'o
2012-11-26 18:59 ` Hiro Lalwani
2012-11-26 20:05 ` Hugh Dickins
2012-11-26 20:13 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-11-26 21:28 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-26 21:39 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-11-26 21:49 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-11-26 22:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-11-27 1:32 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-11-27 4:27 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-26 22:17 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2012-11-26 20:15 ` Zach Brown
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=20121126221710.GR32450@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=meetmehiro@gmail.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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).