From: Al Viro <email@example.com> To: Matthew Wilcox <firstname.lastname@example.org> Cc: David Howells <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] afs: Fix afs_write_end() to handle short writes Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2021 03:40:23 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <YMwVp268KTzTf8cN@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk> (raw) In-Reply-To: <YMddm2P0vD+4edBu@casper.infradead.org> On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 02:46:03PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2021 at 02:37:12PM +0100, David Howells wrote: > > Matthew Wilcox <email@example.com> wrote: > > > > > > (1) If the page is not up to date, then we should just return 0 > > > > (ie. indicating a zero-length copy). The loop in > > > > generic_perform_write() will go around again, possibly breaking up the > > > > iterator into discrete chunks. > > > > > > Does this actually work? What about the situation where you're reading > > > the last page of a file and thus (almost) always reading fewer bytes > > > than a PAGE_SIZE? > > > > Al Viro made such a change for Ceph - and we're writing, not reading. > > I'd feel better if you said "xfstests doesn't show any new problems" > than arguing to authority. > > I know the operation which triggers this path is a call to write(), > but if, say, the file is 32 bytes long, not in cache, and you write > bytes 32-63, the client must READ bytes 0-31 from the server, which > is less than a full page. [as commented on IRC several days ago] Short copy has nothing to do with destination; it's about failures on source - e.g. source page we'd prefaulted before locking the destination got evicted by the time we got around to copying; we can't afford page faults while holding some pages locked, so we do it with pagefault_disable() and get a short copy on #PF. The story with short copies is this: * write() is about to copy the next chunk of data into page cache of the file we are writing into. We have decided what part of the destination page will be copied over, faulted the source in and locked the destination page. * if the page is not uptodate, we might need to read some parts before copying new data into it; the work that needs to be done depends upon the part of page we are going to overwrite. E.g. if we are going to copy over the entire thing, we do _not_ want to bother reading anything into it - if copying works, we'll destroy the previous contents anyway. That's what ->write_begin() is about - it should do whatever's needed in preparation to copying new data. * NOW we can copy the data. Hopefully the copy will be successful (i.e. we don't run into evicted source pages, memory errors, races with munmap(), etc.), but it might fail halfway through - we are doing that part with page faults disabled. * finally we can do write to disk/server/whatnot. That's what ->write_end() is for. Ideally, it'll just send the newly copied data on its way. However, in case of short copy we might have problems. Consider e.g. a block filesystem that has 4 blocks per page; the chunk we were going to write went from the middle of the 1st to the middle of the 4th block. ->write_begin() made sure that 1st and 4th blocks had been uptodate. It had not bothered with the 2nd and the 3rd blocks, since we were going to overwrite them anyway. And had the copy succeeded, we'd be fine - page fully uptodate, can write the data to disk and be done with that. However, the copy failed halfway through the 3rd block. What do we have? 1st block: uptodate, partly old data, partly new one. 2nd block: uptodate, new data 3rd block: beginning is filled with new data, garbage in the rest 4th block: uptodate, old data. What to do? Everything up to the beginning of the 3rd block is fine, but the 3rd one is a hopeless mess. We can't write it out - the garbage would end up on disk. We can't replace the garbage with valid data without reading it from disk - and that'll lose the new data we'd managed to copy there. The best we can do in such situation is to treat that as having advanced to the beginning of the third block, despite having copied more than that. The caller (generic_perform_write()) will choose the next chunk starting at that point (beginning of the 3rd block) and repeat the whole sequence for that chunk, including the fault-in. So ->write_end() gets 3 numbers - two describing the range we prepared for (what ->write_begin() had received) and the third telling how much had been actually copied. Again, "short copy" here does not refer to any preparations done by ->write_begin() - it's about having told ->write_begin() we would copy over given range and only managing to fill a part of that range. Note that if page is uptodate, we are fine - _everything_ in that page matches what we want in file, so we can deal with sending it to disk/server/whatnot. If there'd been a short copy the caller will obviously need to continue from the point where the copy stopped, but that's not our problem. What to do in case of short copy into non-uptodate page is up to filesystem. Saying "sod it, I'm not taking any of that, just repeat the entire thing" is always fine. We might do better than that (see above for one such example), but the caller will be OK if we don't. It's a rare case, and you either need something like race with munmap() of part of source buffer from another thread or severe memory pressure for that to trigger in the first place.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-18 3:40 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2021-06-14 13:20 [PATCH 1/3] afs: Handle len being extending over page end in write_begin/write_end David Howells 2021-06-14 13:20 ` [PATCH 2/3] afs: Fix afs_write_end() to handle short writes David Howells 2021-06-14 13:28 ` Matthew Wilcox 2021-06-14 13:37 ` David Howells 2021-06-14 13:46 ` Matthew Wilcox 2021-06-18 3:40 ` Al Viro [this message] 2021-06-14 14:04 ` David Howells 2021-06-14 14:37 ` Matthew Wilcox 2021-06-14 15:38 ` David Howells 2021-06-14 15:43 ` Matthew Wilcox 2021-06-14 21:11 ` David Howells 2021-06-14 13:20 ` [PATCH 3/3] netfs: fix test for whether we can skip read when writing beyond EOF David Howells 2021-06-15 17:01 ` Jeff Layton 2021-06-14 13:33 ` David Howells 2021-06-17 7:43 ` [PATCH 1/3] afs: Handle len being extending over page end in write_begin/write_end kernel test robot
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=YMwVp268KTzTf8cN@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --firstname.lastname@example.org \ --email@example.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH 2/3] afs: Fix afs_write_end() to handle short writes' \ /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
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.