From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>, Linux Filesystem Development List <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: avoid double-writing the inode on a lazytime expiration Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:07:17 +1100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20200312000716.GY10737@dread.disaster.area> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200311125749.GA7159@mit.edu> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 08:57:49AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 08:20:09PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > Thanks Ted! This fixes the fscrypt test failure. > > > > However, are you sure this works correctly on all filesystems? I'm not sure > > about XFS. XFS only implements ->dirty_inode(), not ->write_inode(), and in its > > ->dirty_inode() it does: > ... > > if (flag != I_DIRTY_SYNC || !(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_TIME)) > > return; > > That's true, but when the timestamps were originally modified, > dirty_inode() will be called with flag == I_DIRTY_TIME, which will > *not* be a no-op; which is to say, XFS will force the timestamps to be > updated on disk when the timestamps are first dirtied, because it > doesn't support I_DIRTY_TIME. We log the initial timestamp change, and then ignore timestamp updates until the dirty time expires and the inode is set I_DIRTY_SYNC via __mark_inode_dirty_sync(). IOWs, on expiry, we have time stamps that may be 24 hours out of date in memory, and they still need to be flushed to the journal. However, your change does not mark the inode dirtying on expiry anymore, so... > So I think we're fine. ... we're not fine. This breaks XFS and any other filesystem that relies on a I_DIRTY_SYNC notification to handle dirty time expiry correctly. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>, Linux Filesystem Development List <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] writeback: avoid double-writing the inode on a lazytime expiration Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2020 11:07:17 +1100 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20200312000716.GY10737@dread.disaster.area> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200311125749.GA7159@mit.edu> On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 08:57:49AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 08:20:09PM -0700, Eric Biggers wrote: > > Thanks Ted! This fixes the fscrypt test failure. > > > > However, are you sure this works correctly on all filesystems? I'm not sure > > about XFS. XFS only implements ->dirty_inode(), not ->write_inode(), and in its > > ->dirty_inode() it does: > ... > > if (flag != I_DIRTY_SYNC || !(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_TIME)) > > return; > > That's true, but when the timestamps were originally modified, > dirty_inode() will be called with flag == I_DIRTY_TIME, which will > *not* be a no-op; which is to say, XFS will force the timestamps to be > updated on disk when the timestamps are first dirtied, because it > doesn't support I_DIRTY_TIME. We log the initial timestamp change, and then ignore timestamp updates until the dirty time expires and the inode is set I_DIRTY_SYNC via __mark_inode_dirty_sync(). IOWs, on expiry, we have time stamps that may be 24 hours out of date in memory, and they still need to be flushed to the journal. However, your change does not mark the inode dirtying on expiry anymore, so... > So I think we're fine. ... we're not fine. This breaks XFS and any other filesystem that relies on a I_DIRTY_SYNC notification to handle dirty time expiry correctly. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-12 0:07 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-03-06 0:45 lazytime causing inodes to remain dirty after sync? Eric Biggers 2020-03-06 0:45 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers 2020-03-07 2:00 ` [PATCH] writeback: avoid double-writing the inode on a lazytime expiration Theodore Ts'o 2020-03-07 2:00 ` [f2fs-dev] " Theodore Ts'o 2020-03-11 3:20 ` Eric Biggers 2020-03-11 3:20 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers 2020-03-11 12:57 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2020-03-11 12:57 ` [f2fs-dev] " Theodore Y. Ts'o 2020-03-12 0:07 ` Dave Chinner [this message] 2020-03-12 0:07 ` Dave Chinner 2020-03-12 14:34 ` Christoph Hellwig 2020-03-12 14:34 ` [f2fs-dev] " Christoph Hellwig 2020-03-12 22:39 ` Dave Chinner 2020-03-12 22:39 ` [f2fs-dev] " Dave Chinner 2020-03-20 2:46 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2020-03-20 2:46 ` [f2fs-dev] " Theodore Y. Ts'o 2020-03-20 2:52 ` [PATCH 1/2] " Theodore Ts'o 2020-03-20 2:52 ` [f2fs-dev] " Theodore Ts'o 2020-03-20 2:52 ` [PATCH 2/2] writeback, xfs: call dirty_inode() with I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRED when appropriate Theodore Ts'o 2020-03-20 2:52 ` [f2fs-dev] " Theodore Ts'o 2020-03-23 17:58 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2020-03-23 17:58 ` [f2fs-dev] " Theodore Y. Ts'o 2020-03-24 8:37 ` Christoph Hellwig 2020-03-24 8:37 ` [f2fs-dev] " Christoph Hellwig 2020-03-24 18:43 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2020-03-24 18:43 ` [f2fs-dev] " Theodore Y. Ts'o 2020-03-25 9:20 ` [PATCH 1/2] writeback: avoid double-writing the inode on a lazytime expiration Christoph Hellwig 2020-03-25 9:20 ` [f2fs-dev] " Christoph Hellwig 2020-03-25 15:21 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o 2020-03-25 15:21 ` [f2fs-dev] " Theodore Y. Ts'o 2020-03-25 15:47 ` Darrick J. Wong 2020-03-25 15:47 ` [f2fs-dev] " Darrick J. Wong 2020-03-11 23:54 ` [PATCH] " Dave Chinner 2020-03-11 23:54 ` [f2fs-dev] " Dave Chinner
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=20200312000716.GY10737@dread.disaster.area \ --to=david@fromorbit.com \ --cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \ --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \ --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \ --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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.