linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
To: jack@suse.cz, tytso@mit.edu, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org,
	riteshh@linux.ibm.com
Subject: [RFCv3 4/4] ext4: Move to shared iolock even without dioread_nolock mount opt
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2019 10:30:24 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191120050024.11161-5-riteshh@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191120050024.11161-1-riteshh@linux.ibm.com>

We were using shared locking only in case of dioread_nolock
mount option in case of DIO overwrites. This mount condition
is not needed anymore with current code, since:-

1. No race between buffered writes & DIO overwrites.
Since buffIO writes takes exclusive locks & DIO overwrites
will take share locking. Also DIO path will make sure
to flush and wait for any dirty page cache data.

2. No race between buffered reads & DIO overwrites, since there
is no block allocation that is possible with DIO overwrites.
So no stale data exposure should happen. Same is the case
between DIO reads & DIO overwrites.

3. Also other paths like truncate is protected,
since we wait there for any DIO in flight to be over.

4. In case of buffIO writes followed by DIO reads:
Since here also we take exclusive locks in ext4_write_begin/end().
There is no risk of exposing any stale data in this case.
Since after ext4_write_end, iomap_dio_rw() will wait to flush &
wait for any dirty page cache data.

Signed-off-by: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@linux.ibm.com>
---
 fs/ext4/file.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/ext4/file.c b/fs/ext4/file.c
index 18cbf9fa52c6..b97efc89cd63 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/file.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/file.c
@@ -383,6 +383,17 @@ static const struct iomap_dio_ops ext4_dio_write_ops = {
 	.end_io = ext4_dio_write_end_io,
 };
 
+static bool ext4_dio_should_shared_lock(struct inode *inode)
+{
+	if (!S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
+		return false;
+	if (!(ext4_test_inode_flag(inode, EXT4_INODE_EXTENTS)))
+		return false;
+	if (ext4_should_journal_data(inode))
+		return false;
+	return true;
+}
+
 /*
  * The intention here is to start with shared lock acquired then see if any
  * condition requires an exclusive inode lock. If yes, then we restart the
@@ -394,8 +405,8 @@ static const struct iomap_dio_ops ext4_dio_write_ops = {
  * - For extending writes case we don't take the shared lock, since it requires
  *   updating inode i_disksize and/or orphan handling with exclusive lock.
  *
- * - shared locking will only be true mostly in case of overwrites with
- *   dioread_nolock mode. Otherwise we will switch to excl. iolock mode.
+ * - shared locking will only be true mostly in case of overwrites.
+ *   Otherwise we will switch to excl. iolock mode.
  */
 static ssize_t ext4_dio_write_checks(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from,
 				 unsigned int *iolock, bool *unaligned_io,
@@ -433,15 +444,14 @@ static ssize_t ext4_dio_write_checks(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from,
 		*extend = true;
 	/*
 	 * Determine whether the IO operation will overwrite allocated
-	 * and initialized blocks. If so, check to see whether it is
-	 * possible to take the dioread_nolock path.
+	 * and initialized blocks.
 	 *
 	 * We need exclusive i_rwsem for changing security info
 	 * in file_modified().
 	 */
 	if (*iolock == EXT4_IOLOCK_SHARED &&
 	    (!IS_NOSEC(inode) || *unaligned_io || *extend ||
-	     !ext4_should_dioread_nolock(inode) ||
+	     !ext4_dio_should_shared_lock(inode) ||
 	     !ext4_overwrite_io(inode, offset, count))) {
 		ext4_iunlock(inode, *iolock);
 		*iolock = EXT4_IOLOCK_EXCL;
@@ -485,7 +495,10 @@ static ssize_t ext4_dio_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
 		iolock = EXT4_IOLOCK_EXCL;
 	}
 
-	if (iolock == EXT4_IOLOCK_SHARED && !ext4_should_dioread_nolock(inode))
+	/*
+	 * Check if we should continue with shared iolock
+	 */
+	if (iolock == EXT4_IOLOCK_SHARED && !ext4_dio_should_shared_lock(inode))
 		iolock = EXT4_IOLOCK_EXCL;
 
 	if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT) {
-- 
2.21.0


  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-11-20  5:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-11-20  5:00 [RFCv3 0/4] ext4: Introducing ilock wrapper APIs & fixing i_rwsem scalablity prob. in DIO mixed-rw Ritesh Harjani
2019-11-20  5:00 ` [RFCv3 1/4] ext4: fix ext4_dax_read/write inode locking sequence for IOCB_NOWAIT Ritesh Harjani
2019-11-20 12:51   ` Jan Kara
2019-11-22  5:53   ` Matthew Bobrowski
2019-11-20  5:00 ` [RFCv3 2/4] ext4: Add ext4_ilock & ext4_iunlock API Ritesh Harjani
2019-11-20 11:23   ` Matthew Bobrowski
2019-11-20 12:18     ` Ritesh Harjani
2019-11-20 16:35       ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-11-23 11:51         ` Ritesh Harjani
2019-11-20 13:11   ` Jan Kara
2019-11-20 16:06     ` Darrick J. Wong
2019-11-20  5:00 ` [RFCv3 3/4] ext4: start with shared iolock in case of DIO instead of excl. iolock Ritesh Harjani
2019-11-20 13:55   ` Jan Kara
2019-11-23 13:17     ` Ritesh Harjani
2019-11-20  5:00 ` Ritesh Harjani [this message]
2019-11-20 14:32   ` [RFCv3 4/4] ext4: Move to shared iolock even without dioread_nolock mount opt Jan Kara
2019-11-26 10:51     ` Ritesh Harjani
2019-11-26 12:45       ` Ritesh Harjani
2019-11-29 17:23         ` Jan Kara
2019-11-29 17:18       ` Jan Kara
2019-12-03 11:54         ` Ritesh Harjani
2019-12-03 12:39           ` Jan Kara
2019-12-03 13:10             ` Ritesh Harjani
2019-12-03 13:48               ` Jan Kara

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=20191120050024.11161-5-riteshh@linux.ibm.com \
    --to=riteshh@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbobrowski@mbobrowski.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: 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).