ocfs2-devel.oss.oracle.com archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Tao Ma <tao.ma@oracle.com>
To: ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
Subject: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: avoid direct write if we fall back to buffered
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 13:16:43 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4BC2ACBB.80909@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4BC0B776020000460001DCCA@novprvlin0050.provo.novell.com>

Hi dong yang,

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.
> 
> 
> IMHO, we can add this check back and fix this check, or we don't try to do direct write if we decided we can't in ocfs2_file_aio_write, after calling ocfs2_prepare_inode_for_write as my patch said.
I think we only need to check this condition in get_blocks. So would you 
mind providing a patch? You old method is too aggressive actually.

btw, I have created a small test script which will expose this bug 
easily. So you don't need to use the time-consuming fsstress test now. 
Just use it to test your fix.

echo 'y'|mkfs.ocfs2 --fs-features=local,noinline-data -b 4K -C 4K 
$DEVICE 1000000
mount -t ocfs2 $DEVICE $MNT_DIR
echo "foo" > $MNT_DIR/foo
dd if=/dev/zero of=$MNT_DIR/foo bs=4K count=1 conv=notrunc oflag=direct
echo "foo" > $MNT_DIR/foo
# The kernel should panic here.

Regards,
Tao
> 
> 
> Comments? ;-)
> 
> 
> Br,
> Li Dongyang
>>>> Sunil Mushran  04/10/10 1:42 AM >>>
>   Li Dongyang wrote:
>> On Friday 09 April 2010 11:32:10 Tao Ma wrote:
>>> Hi Dongyang,
>>>
>>> Li Dongyang wrote:
>>>> Hi, Tao,
>>>>
>>>> On Friday 09 April 2010 10:38:33 Tao Ma wrote:
>>>>> Hi Dongyang,
>>>>>
>>>>> Li Dongyang wrote:
>>>>>> This is because ocfs2_file_aio_write calls
>>>>>> ocfs2_prepare_inode_for_write which sets direct_io to 0 if it finds out
>>>>>> that direct IO would extend the file. But later we call
>>>>>> __generic_file_aio_write which end's up calling
>>>>>> generic_file_direct_write because the file has O_DIRECT flag.So every
>>>>>> time we do a direct write extending the file, the inode->i_size gets
>>>>>> inconsistent with the i_size on disk because we call
>>>>>> generic_file_direct_write, and if we do a truncate after this, we will
>>>>>> meet a bug in ocfs2_truncate_file.
>>>>> yes we have O_DIRECT flag set and in __generic_file_aio_write it will
>>>>> call generic_file_direct_write first and then trigger to
>>>>> ocfs2_direct_IO. In this function we will check again and return 0. And
>>>>> _generic_file_aio_write will fall back to buffered write if the directIO
>>>>> can't write. Am I wrong somehow?
>>>> yes ocfs2_direct_IO has some check, but it just check if we are
>>>> appending(the i_size <= offset), if the offset < i_size and offset +
>>>> count > i_size, it will do direct io anyway. seems we also can fix this
>>>> by adding a check to ocfs2_direct_IO.
>>> It is done by ocfs2_direct_IO_get_blocks. Just debug the kernel and you
>>> will get what I mean. ;)
>> Do you mean this section in ocfs2_direct_IO_get_blocks:?
>> /*
>>  * Any write past EOF is not allowed because we'd be extending.
>>  */
>> if (create && (iblock + max_blocks) > inode_blocks) {
>>     ret = -EIO;
>>     goto bail;
>> }
>>
>> I was using the linus tree 
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git
>> and we don't have that check, but I can find this in the 
>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jlbec/ocfs2.git, introduced by 
>> commit 564f8a3228879d6962edb3432d01bcd7499a67ec
>>
>> and now with this check I got what you mean, you are right, but I wonder why 
>> the linus tree doesn't have this check? and are we suppose to do with this?
>> IMHO we can just push this commit to linus tree.
> 
> commit 5fe878ae7f82fbf0830dbfaee4c5ca18f3aee442
> Author: Christoph Hellwig 
> Date:   Tue Dec 15 16:47:50 2009 -0800
> 
>     direct-io: cleanup blockdev_direct_IO locking
> 
> This check was removed recently by the above patch.
> 
> 

  parent reply	other threads:[~2010-04-12  5:16 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 [this message]
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
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=4BC2ACBB.80909@oracle.com \
    --to=tao.ma@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).