From: Joel Becker <Joel.Becker@oracle.com>
To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: avoid direct write if we fall back to buffered
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:54:35 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100413235434.GA5530@mail.oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BC2ACBB.80909@oracle.com>
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 01:16:43PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
> Dong Yang Li wrote:
> > I still get a bug with this check and without my patch:
> yes, the check doesn't work actually in this case.
> >
> >
> > [16179.955148] (13400,1):ocfs2_truncate_file:465 ERROR: bug expression: le64_to_cpu(fe->i_size) != i_size_read(inode)
> > [16179.955157] (13400,1):ocfs2_truncate_file:465 ERROR: Inode 254789, inode i_size = 811008 != di i_size = 809011, i_flags = 0x1
> > the call trace is the same.
> >
> >
> > the problem is this check in ocfs2_direct_IO_get_blocks just check if we are going beyond the blocks right now,
> > so if a direct write won't play with new blocks but extending the i_size still get a pass, like the error above said, di->i_size is 809011, using 198 blocks and the direct write end up with i_size 811008, just same 198 blocks.
> yeah, you are right.
I think Sunil and I have found the real culprit.
If a file is opened for O_DIRECT, and there are no holes,
refcounts or anything, we are doing direct I/O. ocfs2_file_aio_write()
(o_f_a_w() from now on) locks things down like so: lock(i_mutex),
down_read(ip_alloc_sem), PR(rw_lock). We have ip_alloc_sem preventing
size changes on the local node and rw_lock preventing size changes on
other nodes. We call generic_file_direct_write() ourselves.
If a file is not opened with O_DIRECT, we are doing regular
buffered writes. o_f_a_w() locks like so: lock(i_mutex),
EX(rw_lock). It is protecting against other nodes, but it does not
touch ip_alloc_sem. Why? Because we call __generic_file_aio_write(),
which will call ->write_begin(). ip_alloc_sem will be taken inside
->write_begin(). That's where we protect against other local processes.
You may already see where I'm going with this. If we are open
with O_DIRECT, but we have to fall back to buffered, we will do this
locking: lock(i_mutex), down_read(ip_alloc_sem), PR(rw_lock),
NL(rw_lock), up_read(ip_alloc_sem), EX(rw_lock). That is, we start with
the direct I/O locking, then back off and do the buffered locking. But
when we get into __g_f_a_w(), it will try the direct I/O again. If the
leading portion of the I/O is capable of direct I/O, it will go into
direct mode *without ever taking ip_alloc_sem*. Once it gets to the
portion of the I/O that cannot be done direct, it will fall back to
buffered for the rest of the I/O and will call ->write_begin() as
expected.
So this I/O that extends i_size to the end of the allocation
will proceed as a direct I/O but will not have ip_alloc_sem. Thus
truncate (and any other allocation change) can race on the local
machine.
I think some form of Dong Yang's patch is going to be necessary.
Joel
--
Life's Little Instruction Book #306
"Take a nap on Sunday afternoons."
Joel Becker
Principal Software Developer
Oracle
E-mail: joel.becker at oracle.com
Phone: (650) 506-8127
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-04-13 23:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-04-10 7:37 [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: avoid direct write if we fall back to buffered Dong Yang Li
2010-04-10 9:37 ` Joel Becker
2010-04-10 9:48 ` Li Dongyang
2010-04-12 5:16 ` Tao Ma
2010-04-12 5:31 ` Li Dongyang
2010-04-12 6:24 ` Tao Ma
2010-04-14 2:44 ` Tao Ma
2010-04-14 5:47 ` Li Dongyang
2010-04-14 6:08 ` Tao Ma
2010-04-13 23:54 ` Joel Becker [this message]
2010-04-14 0:13 ` Tao Ma
2010-04-14 5:58 ` Li Dongyang
2010-04-14 19:20 ` Joel Becker
2010-04-22 14:13 ` Li Dongyang
2010-04-23 20:06 ` Joel Becker
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-04-08 7:47 Li Dongyang
2010-04-08 18:41 ` Sunil Mushran
2010-04-09 2:27 ` Li Dongyang
2010-04-09 2:38 ` Tao Ma
2010-04-09 3:00 ` Li Dongyang
2010-04-09 3:32 ` Tao Ma
2010-04-09 9:20 ` Li Dongyang
2010-04-09 17:36 ` Sunil Mushran
2010-04-09 7:58 ` Coly Li
2010-04-09 7:56 ` Tao Ma
2010-04-14 1:58 ` Joel Becker
2010-04-14 7:42 ` Li Dongyang
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=20100413235434.GA5530@mail.oracle.com \
--to=joel.becker@oracle.com \
--cc=ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).