Re: [man-pages RFC PATCH v4] statx, inode: document the new STATX_INO_VERSION field

["NeilBrown" <neilb@suse.de>]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2022, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Sun, 2022-09-11 at 08:53 +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> > This could be expensive.
> > 
> > There is not currently any locking around O_DIRECT writes.  You cannot
> > synchronise with them.
> > 
> 
> AFAICT, DIO write() implementations in btrfs, ext4, and xfs all hold
> inode_lock_shared across the I/O. That was why patch #8 takes the
> inode_lock (exclusive) across the getattr.

Looking at ext4_dio_write_iter() it certain does take
inode_lock_shared() before starting the write and in some cases it
requests, using IOMAP_DIO_FORCE_WAIT, that imap_dio_rw() should wait for
the write to complete.  But not in all cases.
So I don't think it always holds the shared lock across all direct IO.

> 
> > The best you can do is update the i_version immediately after all the
> > O_DIRECT writes in a single request complete.
> > 
> > > 
> > > To summarize, there are two main uses for the change attr in NFSv4:
> > > 
> > > 1/ to provide change_info4 for directory morphing operations (CREATE,
> > > LINK, OPEN, REMOVE, and RENAME). It turns out that this is already
> > > atomic in the current nfsd code (AFAICT) by virtue of the fact that we
> > > hold the i_rwsem exclusively over these operations. The change attr is
> > > also queried pre and post while the lock is held, so that should ensure
> > > that we get true atomicity for this.
> > 
> > Yes, directory ops are relatively easy.
> > 
> > > 
> > > 2/ as an adjunct for the ctime when fetching attributes to validate
> > > caches. We don't expect perfect consistency between read (and readlike)
> > > operations and GETATTR, even when they're in the same compound.
> > > 
> > > IOW, a READ+GETATTR compound can legally give you a short (or zero-
> > > length) read, and then the getattr indicates a size that is larger than
> > > where the READ data stops, due to a write or truncate racing in after
> > > the read.
> > 
> > I agree that atomicity is neither necessary nor practical.  Ordering is
> > important though.  I don't think a truncate(0) racing with a READ can
> > credibly result in a non-zero size AFTER a zero-length read.  A truncate
> > that extends the size could have that effect though.
> > 
> > > 
> > > Ideally, the attributes in the GETATTR reply should be consistent
> > > between themselves though. IOW, all of the attrs should accurately
> > > represent the state of the file at a single point in time.
> > > change+size+times+etc. should all be consistent with one another.
> > > 
> > > I think we get all of this by taking the inode_lock around the
> > > vfs_getattr call in nfsd4_encode_fattr. It may not be the most elegant
> > > solution, but it should give us the atomicity we need, and it doesn't
> > > require adding extra operations or locking to the write codepaths.
> > 
> > Explicit attribute changes (chown/chmod/utimes/truncate etc) are always
> > done under the inode lock.  Implicit changes via inode_update_time() are
> > not (though xfs does take the lock, ext4 doesn't, haven't checked
> > others).  So taking the inode lock won't ensure those are internally
> > consistent.
> > 
> > I think using inode_lock_shared() is acceptable.  It doesn't promise
> > perfect atomicity, but it is probably good enough.
> > 
> > We'd need a good reason to want perfect atomicity to go further, and I
> > cannot think of one.
> > 
> > 
> 
> Taking inode_lock_shared is sufficient to block out buffered and DAX
> writes. DIO writes sometimes only take the shared lock (e.g. when the
> data is already properly aligned). If we want to ensure the getattr
> doesn't run while _any_ writes are running, we'd need the exclusive
> lock.

But the exclusive lock is bad for scalability.

> 
> Maybe that's overkill, though it seems like we could have a race like
> this without taking inode_lock across the getattr:
> 
> reader				writer
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> 				i_version++
> getattr
> read
> 				DIO write to backing store
> 

This is why I keep saying that the i_version increment must be after the
write, not before it.

> 
> Given that we can't fully exclude mmap writes, maybe we can just
> document that mixing DIO or mmap writes on the server + NFS may not be
> fully cache coherent.

"fully cache coherent" is really more than anyone needs.
The i_version must be seen to change no earlier than the related change
becomes visible, and no later than the request which initiated that
change is acknowledged as complete.

NeilBrown