From: Oleg Drokin <green@namesys.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Spurious -EIO when reading a file being written with O_DIRECT?
Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2003 09:38:46 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030807053846.GC19048@namesys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20030806144206.12a18557.akpm@osdl.org>
Hello!
On Wed, Aug 06, 2003 at 02:42:06PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > We were reported a problem where if a file being written in directio mode
> > and being read at the same time (in "normal/buffered" mode), then reading
> > process gets -EIO when near the end of file.
> >
> > Initially I thought this is reiserfs-only problemm and digged in that
> > direction, but then it turned out reiserfs does everything correctly
> > and the VFS itself seems to be racey (my current suspiction is directio
> > process uses get_block() that extends the file <schedule> reading process
> > gets the buffer and submits io, then waits for page to become uptodate
> > <schedule> direct io process unmaps buffer's metadata
> > As a result - that page never becomes uptodate and we get -EIO from do_generic_file_read. )
> > If I take i_sem around call to do_generic_file_read in generic_file_read (in 2.4.21-pre10),
> > that of course helps (this is of course not a correct fix, but just a demonstration
> > that some VFS race is in place).
> > The same problem can be observed on ext2 in both 2.4.21-pre10 and in 2.6.0-test2
> > Attached is test_directio.c program, compile it and run with some filename as argument,
> > immediately start "tail" with same filename and you'd get almost immediate
> > I/O error from tail on 2.4 and you'd get same I/O error in 2.6 only after some more waiting.
> > Is this something known and expected (or may be somebody have a fix already? ;) )?
> Test a current 2.4 kernel - it has lots of redone O_DIRECT-vs-buffered
> locking.
Stupid me.
I mean I tested with 2.4.22-pre10 which is pretty current.
I mean, there were no changes to buffers code in between 2.4.22-pre10 .. 2.4.22-rc1
> A 2.6 forward-port of that was done by Badari but I lost it and need to
> find it again.
Since it did not help 2.4.22 code, I think 2.6.0 won't benefit from it too.
The testcase is really easy and everyone can reproduce the problem easily.
Bye,
Oleg
prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-08-07 5:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-08-06 11:08 Spurious -EIO when reading a file being written with O_DIRECT? Oleg Drokin
2003-08-06 21:42 ` Andrew Morton
2003-08-07 5:38 ` Oleg Drokin [this message]
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=20030807053846.GC19048@namesys.com \
--to=green@namesys.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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