From: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc: brauner@kernel.org, cem@kernel.org, dchinner@redhat.com,
hch@lst.de, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
ojaswin@linux.ibm.com, ritesh.list@gmail.com,
martin.petersen@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 08/10] xfs: Commit CoW-based atomic writes atomically
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 11:52:30 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ce6ff351-9bcd-418d-a1b9-081b3ba05493@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20250206215014.GX21808@frogsfrogsfrogs>
On 06/02/2025 21:50, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 10:27:45AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> On 05/02/2025 19:47, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 12:01:25PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>>>> When completing a CoW-based write, each extent range mapping update is
>>>> covered by a separate transaction.
>>>>
>>>> For a CoW-based atomic write, all mappings must be changed at once, so
>>>> change to use a single transaction.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 5 ++++-
>>>> fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c | 48 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.h | 3 +++
>>>> 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
>>>> index 12af5cdc3094..170d7891f90d 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
>>>> @@ -527,7 +527,10 @@ xfs_dio_write_end_io(
>>>> nofs_flag = memalloc_nofs_save();
>>>> if (flags & IOMAP_DIO_COW) {
>>>> - error = xfs_reflink_end_cow(ip, offset, size);
>>>> + if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_ATOMIC)
>>>> + error = xfs_reflink_end_atomic_cow(ip, offset, size);
>>>> + else
>>>> + error = xfs_reflink_end_cow(ip, offset, size);
>>>> if (error)
>>>> goto out;
>>>> }
>>>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c
>>>> index dbce333b60eb..60c986300faa 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_reflink.c
>>>> @@ -990,6 +990,54 @@ xfs_reflink_end_cow(
>>>> trace_xfs_reflink_end_cow_error(ip, error, _RET_IP_);
>>>> return error;
>>>> }
>>>> +int
>>>> +xfs_reflink_end_atomic_cow(
>>>> + struct xfs_inode *ip,
>>>> + xfs_off_t offset,
>>>> + xfs_off_t count)
>>>> +{
>>>> + xfs_fileoff_t offset_fsb;
>>>> + xfs_fileoff_t end_fsb;
>>>> + int error = 0;
>>>> + struct xfs_mount *mp = ip->i_mount;
>>>> + struct xfs_trans *tp;
>>>> + unsigned int resblks;
>>>> + bool commit = false;
>>>> +
>>>> + trace_xfs_reflink_end_cow(ip, offset, count);
>>>> +
>>>> + offset_fsb = XFS_B_TO_FSBT(ip->i_mount, offset);
>>>> + end_fsb = XFS_B_TO_FSB(ip->i_mount, offset + count);
>>>> +
>>>> + resblks = XFS_NEXTENTADD_SPACE_RES(ip->i_mount,
>>>> + (unsigned int)(end_fsb - offset_fsb),
>>>> + XFS_DATA_FORK);
>>>> +
>>>> + error = xfs_trans_alloc(mp, &M_RES(mp)->tr_write, resblks, 0,
>>>
>>> xfs gained reflink support for realtime volumes in 6.14-rc1, so you now
>>> have to calculate for that in here too.
>>>
>>>> + XFS_TRANS_RESERVE, &tp);
>>>> + if (error)
>>>> + return error;
>>>> +
>>>> + xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
>>>> + xfs_trans_ijoin(tp, ip, 0);
>>>> +
>>>> + while (end_fsb > offset_fsb && !error)
>>>> + error = xfs_reflink_end_cow_extent_locked(ip, &offset_fsb,
>>>> + end_fsb, tp, &commit);
>>>
>>> Hmm. Attaching intent items to a transaction consumes space in that
>>> transaction, so we probably ought to limit the amount that we try to do
>>> here. Do you know what that limit is? I don't,
>>
>> nor do I ...
>>
>>> but it's roughly
>>> tr_logres divided by the average size of a log intent item.
>>
>> So you have a ballpark figure on the average size of a log intent item, or
>> an idea on how to get it?
>
> You could add up the size of struct
> xfs_{bui,rmap,refcount,efi}_log_format structures and add 20%, that will
> give you a ballpark figure of the worst case per-block requirements.
>
> My guess is that 64 blocks is ok provided resblks is big enough. But I
> guess we could estimate it (very conservatively) dynamically too.
>
> (also note tr_itruncate declares more logres)
64 blocks gives quite a large awu max, so that would be ok
>
>>> This means we need to restrict the size of an untorn write to a
>>> double-digit number of fsblocks for safety.
>>
>> Sure, but won't we also still be liable to suffer the same issue which was
>> fixed in commit d6f215f359637?
>
> Yeah, come to think of it, you need to reserve the worst case space
> reservation, i.e. each of the blocks between offset_fsb and end_fsb
> becomes a separate btree update.
>
> resblks = (end_fsb - offset_fsb) *
> XFS_NEXTENTADD_SPACE_RES(mp, 1, XFS_DATA_FORK);
>
>
ok
Thanks,
John
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-07 11:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-04 12:01 [PATCH RFC 00/10] large atomic writes for xfs with CoW John Garry
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 01/10] xfs: Switch atomic write size check in xfs_file_write_iter() John Garry
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 02/10] xfs: Refactor xfs_reflink_end_cow_extent() John Garry
2025-02-05 19:50 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-06 10:35 ` John Garry
2025-02-06 21:38 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 03/10] iomap: Support CoW-based atomic writes John Garry
2025-02-05 20:11 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-06 11:21 ` John Garry
2025-02-06 21:40 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 04/10] xfs: Make xfs_find_trim_cow_extent() public John Garry
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 05/10] xfs: Reflink CoW-based atomic write support John Garry
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 06/10] xfs: iomap " John Garry
2025-02-05 20:05 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-06 11:10 ` John Garry
2025-02-06 21:44 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-07 11:48 ` John Garry
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 07/10] xfs: Add xfs_file_dio_write_atomic() John Garry
2025-02-05 19:55 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-06 10:43 ` John Garry
2025-02-10 16:59 ` John Garry
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 08/10] xfs: Commit CoW-based atomic writes atomically John Garry
2025-02-05 19:47 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-06 10:27 ` John Garry
2025-02-06 21:50 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-07 11:52 ` John Garry [this message]
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 09/10] xfs: Update atomic write max size John Garry
2025-02-05 19:41 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-06 9:15 ` John Garry
2025-02-06 21:54 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-07 11:53 ` John Garry
2025-02-04 12:01 ` [PATCH RFC 10/10] xfs: Allow block allocator to take an alignment hint John Garry
2025-02-05 19:20 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-06 8:10 ` John Garry
2025-02-06 21:54 ` 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=ce6ff351-9bcd-418d-a1b9-081b3ba05493@oracle.com \
--to=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=ojaswin@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
/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