public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@pps.jussieu.fr>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Write is not atomic?
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:13:02 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121015231302.GF2739@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7i391fto34.fsf@lanthane.pps.jussieu.fr>

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:36:15PM +0200, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> The Linux manual page for write(2) says:
> 
>     The adjustment of the file offset and the write operation are
>     performed as an atomic step.

That's wrong. The file offset update is not synchronised at all with
the write, and for a shared fd the update will race.


> This is apparently an extension to POSIX, which says
> 
>     This volume of IEEE Std 1003.1-2001 does not specify behavior of
>     concurrent writes to a file from multiple processes. Applications
>     should use some form of concurrency control.

This is how Linux behaves.

> The following fragment of code
> 
>     int fd;
>     fd = open("exemple", O_CREAT | O_WRONLY | O_TRUNC, 0666);
>     fork();
>     write(fd, "Ouille", 6);
>     close(fd);
> 
> produces "OuilleOuille", as expected, on ext4 on two machines running
> Linux 3.2 AMD64.  However, over XFS on an old Pentium III at 500 MHz
> running 2.6.32, it produces just "Ouille" roughly once in three times.

ext4, on 3.6:

$ for i in `seq 0 10000`; do ./a.out ; cat /mnt/scratch/foo ; echo ; done | sort |uniq -c
     39 Ouille
   9962 OuilleOuille
$

XFS, on the same kernel, hardware and block device:

$ for i in `seq 0 10000`; do ./a.out ; cat /mnt/scratch/foo ; echo ; done | sort |uniq -c
     40 Ouille
   9961 OuilleOuille
$

So both filesystems behave according to the POSIX definition of
concurrent writes....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-10-15 23:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-10-15 21:36 Write is not atomic? Juliusz Chroboczek
2012-10-15 22:21 ` Max Filippov
2012-10-15 23:36   ` Juliusz Chroboczek
2012-10-15 23:13 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2012-10-15 23:24   ` Philippe Troin
2012-10-15 23:42     ` Max Filippov
2012-10-15 23:40 ` Jochen Striepe
2012-10-16  6:21   ` Juliusz Chroboczek

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=20121015231302.GF2739@dastard \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=jch@pps.jussieu.fr \
    --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