From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: hch@infradead.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
houtao1@huawei.com, zhengbin13@huawei.com, yi.zhang@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC] iomap: fix race between readahead and direct write
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2020 08:24:39 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200117162439.GT8247@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200117110536.GE17141@quack2.suse.cz>
On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 12:05:36PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 17-01-20 17:39:03, yukuai (C) wrote:
> > On 2020/1/16 23:32, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > Thanks for the report and the patch. But the data integrity when mixing
> > > buffered and direct IO like this is best effort only. We definitely do not
> > > want to sacrifice performance of common cases or code complexity to make
> > > cases like this work reliably.
> >
> > In the patch, the only thing that is diffrent is that iomap_begin() will
> > be called for each page. However, it seems the performance in sequential
> > read didn't get worse. Is there a specific case that the performance
> > will get worse?
>
> Well, one of the big points of iomap infrastructure is that you call
> filesystem once to give you large extent instead of calling it to provide
> allocation for each page separately. The additional CPU overhead will be
> visible if you push the machine hard enough. So IMHO the overhead just is
> not worth it for a corner-case like you presented. But that's just my
> opinion, Darrick and Christoph are definitive arbiters here...
Does the problem go away if you apply[1]? If I understand the race
correctly, marking the extents unwritten and leaving them that way until
after we've written the disk should eliminate the exposure vector...? :)
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/157915535059.2406747.264640456606868955.stgit@magnolia/
--D
> Honza
>
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
> SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-17 16:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-16 6:36 [RFC] iomap: fix race between readahead and direct write yu kuai
2020-01-16 15:32 ` Jan Kara
2020-01-17 9:39 ` yukuai (C)
2020-01-17 11:05 ` Jan Kara
2020-01-17 16:24 ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2020-01-19 1:25 ` yukuai (C)
2020-01-19 1:17 ` yukuai (C)
2020-01-20 11:42 ` Jan Kara
2020-01-18 23:08 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-01-19 1:34 ` yukuai (C)
2020-01-19 1:42 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-01-19 1:57 ` yukuai (C)
2020-01-19 2:51 ` yukuai (C)
2020-01-19 3:01 ` Gao Xiang
2020-01-19 3:15 ` yukuai (C)
2020-01-19 6:14 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-01-19 6:55 ` yukuai (C)
2020-01-19 7:58 ` Matthew Wilcox
2020-01-19 11:21 ` yukuai (C)
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=20200117162439.GT8247@magnolia \
--to=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=houtao1@huawei.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.com \
--cc=zhengbin13@huawei.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).