Re: [PATCH v2 11/11] xfs: add support for DAX fsync/msync

Ross Zwisler
2015-11-17T19:10:50Z

On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 10:12:22AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 05:06:50PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > To properly support the new DAX fsync/msync infrastructure filesystems
> > need to call dax_pfn_mkwrite() so that DAX can properly track when a user
> > write faults on a previously cleaned address. They also need to call
> > dax_fsync() in the filesystem fsync() path. This dax_fsync() call uses
> > addresses retrieved from get_block() so it needs to be ordered with
> > respect to truncate. This is accomplished by using the same locking that
> > was set up for DAX page faults.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 18 +++++++++++++-----
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> > index 39743ef..2b490a1 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> > @@ -209,7 +209,8 @@ xfs_file_fsync(
> > loff_t end,
> > int datasync)
> > {
> > - struct inode *inode = file->f_mapping->host;
> > + struct address_space *mapping = file->f_mapping;
> > + struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
> > struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(inode);
> > struct xfs_mount *mp = ip->i_mount;
> > int error = 0;
> > @@ -218,7 +219,13 @@ xfs_file_fsync(
> >
> > trace_xfs_file_fsync(ip);
> >
> > - error = filemap_write_and_wait_range(inode->i_mapping, start, end);
> > + if (dax_mapping(mapping)) {
> > + xfs_ilock(XFS_I(inode), XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED);
> > + dax_fsync(mapping, start, end);
> > + xfs_iunlock(XFS_I(inode), XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED);
> > + }
> > +
> > + error = filemap_write_and_wait_range(mapping, start, end);
>
> Ok, I don't understand a couple of things here.
>
> Firstly, if it's a DAX mapping, why are we still calling
> filemap_write_and_wait_range() after the dax_fsync() call that has
> already written back all the dirty cachelines?
>
> Secondly, exactly what is the XFS_MMAPLOCK_SHARED lock supposed to
> be doing here? I don't see where dax_fsync() has any callouts to
> get_block(), so the comment "needs to be ordered with respect to
> truncate" doesn't make any obvious sense. If we have a racing
> truncate removing entries from the radix tree, then thanks to the
> mapping tree lock we'll either find an entry we need to write back,
> or we won't find any entry at all, right?

You're right, dax_fsync() doesn't call out to get_block() any more. It does
save the results of get_block() calls from the page faults, though, and I was
concerned about the following race:

fsync thread truncate thread
------------ ---------------
dax_fsync()
save tagged entries in pvec

change block mapping for inode so that
entries saved in pvec are no longer
owned by this inode

loop through pvec using stale results
from get_block(), flushing and cleaning
entries we no longer own

In looking at the xfs_file_fsync() code, though, it seems like if this race
existed it would also exist for page cache entries that were being put into a
pvec in write_cache_pages(), and that we would similarly be writing back
cached pages that no longer belong to this inode.

Is this race non-existent?

> Lastly, this flushing really needs to be inside
> filemap_write_and_wait_range(), because we call the writeback code
> from many more places than just fsync to ensure ordering of various
> operations such that files are in known state before proceeding
> (e.g. hole punch).

The call to dax_fsync() (soon to be dax_writeback_mapping_range()) first lived
in do_writepages() in the RFC version, but was moved into the filesystem so we
could have access to get_block(), which is no longer needed, and so we could
use the FS level locking. If the race described above isn't an issue then I
agree moving this call out of the filesystems and down into the generic page
writeback code is probably the right thing to do.

Thanks for the feedback.