From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To: "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>,
Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] ext4: Do not fallback to buffered-io for DIO atomic write
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2024 14:51:11 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20241031215111.GF21832@frogsfrogsfrogs> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3c6f41ebed5ca2a669fb05ccc38e8530d0e3e220.1730286164.git.ritesh.list@gmail.com>
On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 09:27:41PM +0530, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote:
> atomic writes is currently only supported for single fsblock and only
> for direct-io. We should not return -ENOTBLK for atomic writes since we
> want the atomic write request to either complete fully or fail
> otherwise. We should not fallback to buffered-io in case of DIO atomic
> write requests.
> Let's also catch if this ever happens by adding some WARN_ON_ONCE before
> buffered-io handling for direct-io atomic writes.
>
> More details of the discussion [1].
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/cover.1729825985.git.ritesh.list@gmail.com/T/#m9dbecc11bed713ed0d7a486432c56b105b555f04
>
> Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
> ---
> fs/ext4/file.c | 7 +++++++
> fs/ext4/inode.c | 14 +++++++++-----
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/file.c b/fs/ext4/file.c
> index 8116bd78910b..61787a37e9d4 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/file.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/file.c
> @@ -599,6 +599,13 @@ static ssize_t ext4_dio_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
> ssize_t err;
> loff_t endbyte;
>
> + /*
> + * There is no support for atomic writes on buffered-io yet,
> + * we should never fallback to buffered-io for DIO atomic
> + * writes.
> + */
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_ATOMIC);
> +
> offset = iocb->ki_pos;
> err = ext4_buffered_write_iter(iocb, from);
> if (err < 0)
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> index fcdee27b9aa2..26b3c84d7f64 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> @@ -3449,12 +3449,16 @@ static int ext4_iomap_end(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t length,
> {
> /*
> * Check to see whether an error occurred while writing out the data to
> - * the allocated blocks. If so, return the magic error code so that we
> - * fallback to buffered I/O and attempt to complete the remainder of
> - * the I/O. Any blocks that may have been allocated in preparation for
> - * the direct I/O will be reused during buffered I/O.
> + * the allocated blocks. If so, return the magic error code for
> + * non-atomic write so that we fallback to buffered I/O and attempt to
> + * complete the remainder of the I/O.
> + * For atomic writes we will simply fail the I/O request if we coudn't
> + * write anything. For non-atomic writes, any blocks that may have been
> + * allocated in preparation for the direct I/O will be reused during
> + * buffered I/O.
> */
> - if (flags & (IOMAP_WRITE | IOMAP_DIRECT) && written == 0)
> + if (!(flags & IOMAP_ATOMIC) && (flags & (IOMAP_WRITE | IOMAP_DIRECT))
Huh. The WRITE|DIRECT check doesn't look right to me, because the
expression returns true for any write or any directio. I think that's
currently "ok" because ext4_iomap_end is only called for directio
writes, but this bugs me anyway. For a directio write fallback, that
comparison really should be:
(flags & (WRITE|DIRECT)) == (WRITE|DIRECT)
static inline bool
ext4_want_directio_fallback(unsigned flags, ssize_t written)
{
/* must be a directio to fall back to buffered */
if (flags & (IOMAP_WRITE | IOMAP_DIRECT)) !=
(IOMAP_WRITE | IOMAP_DIRECT)
return false;
/* atomic writes are all-or-nothing */
if (flags & IOMAP_ATOMIC)
return false;
/* can only try again if we wrote nothing */
return written == 0;
}
if (ext4_want_directio_fallback(flags, written))
return -ENOTBLK;
> + && written == 0)
Nit: put the '&&' operator on the previous line when there's a multiline
expression.
--D
> return -ENOTBLK;
>
> return 0;
> --
> 2.46.0
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-10-31 21:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-10-30 15:57 [PATCH v3 0/4] ext4: Add atomic writes support for DIO Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2024-10-30 15:57 ` [PATCH v3 1/4] ext4: Add statx support for atomic writes Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2024-10-31 21:42 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-11-01 2:30 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-11-01 3:33 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-10-30 15:57 ` [PATCH v3 2/4] ext4: Check for atomic writes support in write iter Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2024-10-31 21:42 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-10-30 15:57 ` [PATCH v3 3/4] ext4: Support setting FMODE_CAN_ATOMIC_WRITE Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2024-10-31 21:42 ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-10-30 15:57 ` [PATCH v3 4/4] ext4: Do not fallback to buffered-io for DIO atomic write Ritesh Harjani (IBM)
2024-10-31 21:51 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2024-11-01 3:11 ` Ritesh Harjani
2024-10-31 22:01 ` [PATCH v3 0/4] ext4: Add atomic writes support for DIO Darrick J. Wong
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=20241031215111.GF21832@frogsfrogsfrogs \
--to=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ojaswin@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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