From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
To: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: <jack@suse.com>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <chao@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] direct-io: use read lock for DIO_LOCKING flag
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2021 10:19:27 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <914e86e7-f53a-ea69-ab9d-d05cd28a9802@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YHjds1kY6h2kzIZ+@zeniv-ca.linux.org.uk>
On 2021/4/16 8:43, Al Viro wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 12:24:13PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>> On Thu 15-04-21 17:43:32, Chao Yu wrote:
>>> 9902af79c01a ("parallel lookups: actual switch to rwsem") changes inode
>>> lock from mutex to rwsem, however, we forgot to adjust lock for
>>> DIO_LOCKING flag in do_blockdev_direct_IO(),
>
> The change in question had nothing to do with the use of ->i_mutex for
> regular files data access.
>
>>> so let's change to hold read
>>> lock to mitigate performance regression in the case of read DIO vs read DIO,
>>> meanwhile it still keeps original functionality of avoiding buffered access
>>> vs direct access.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>>
>> Thanks for the patch but this is not safe. Originally we had exclusive lock
>> (with i_mutex), switching to rwsem doesn't change that requirement. It may
>> be OK for some filesystems to actually use shared acquisition of rwsem for
>> DIO reads but it is not clear that is fine for all filesystems (and I
>> suspect those filesystems that actually do care already don't use
>> DIO_LOCKING flag or were already converted to iomap_dio_rw()). So unless
>> you do audit of all filesystems using do_blockdev_direct_IO() with
>> DIO_LOCKING flag and make sure they are all fine with inode lock in shared
>> mode, this is a no-go.
>
> Aye. Frankly, I would expect that anyone bothering with that kind of
> analysis for given filesystem (and there are fairly unpleasant ones in the
> list) would just use the fruits of those efforts to convert it over to
> iomap.
Actually, I was misguided by DIO_LOCKING comments more or less, it looks it
was introduced to avoid race case only in between buffered IO and DIO.
/* need locking between buffered and direct access */
DIO_LOCKING = 0x01,
I don't think it is easy for me to analyse usage scenario/restriction of all
DIO_LOCKING users, and get their developers' acks for this change.
Converting fs to use iomap_dio_rw looks a better option for me, thanks, Jan
and Al. :)
Thanks,
>
> "Read DIO" does not mean that accesses to private in-core data structures used
> by given filesystem can be safely done in parallel. So blanket patch like
> that is not safe at all.
> .
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-04-16 2:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-04-15 9:43 [PATCH] direct-io: use read lock for DIO_LOCKING flag Chao Yu
2021-04-15 10:24 ` Jan Kara
2021-04-16 0:43 ` Al Viro
2021-04-16 2:19 ` Chao Yu [this message]
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=914e86e7-f53a-ea69-ab9d-d05cd28a9802@huawei.com \
--to=yuchao0@huawei.com \
--cc=chao@kernel.org \
--cc=jack@suse.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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).