From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>, Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org,
Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] fs: avoid double-writing the inode on a lazytime expiration
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 14:22:12 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200326032212.GN10776@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200325122825.1086872-3-hch@lst.de>
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:28:23PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> In the case that an inode has dirty timestamp for longer than the
> lazytime expiration timeout (or if all such inodes are being flushed
> out due to a sync or syncfs system call), we need to inform the file
> system that the inode is dirty so that the inode's timestamps can be
> copied out to the on-disk data structures. That's because if the file
> system supports lazytime, it will have ignored the dirty_inode(inode,
> I_DIRTY_TIME) notification when the timestamp was modified in memory.q
> Previously, this was accomplished by calling mark_inode_dirty_sync(),
> but that has the unfortunate side effect of also putting the inode the
> writeback list, and that's not necessary in this case, since we will
> immediately call write_inode() afterwards. Replace the call to
> mark_inode_dirty_sync() with a new lazytime_expired method to clearly
> separate out this case.
hmmm. Doesn't this cause issues with both iput() and
vfs_fsync_range() because they call mark_inode_dirty_sync() on
I_DIRTY_TIME inodes to move them onto the writeback list so they are
appropriately expired when the inode is written back.
i.e.:
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> index 2094386af8ac..e5aafd40dd0f 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> @@ -612,19 +612,13 @@ xfs_fs_destroy_inode(
> }
>
> static void
> -xfs_fs_dirty_inode(
> - struct inode *inode,
> - int flag)
> +xfs_fs_lazytime_expired(
> + struct inode *inode)
> {
> struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(inode);
> struct xfs_mount *mp = ip->i_mount;
> struct xfs_trans *tp;
>
> - if (!(inode->i_sb->s_flags & SB_LAZYTIME))
> - return;
> - if (flag != I_DIRTY_SYNC || !(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_TIME))
> - return;
> -
> if (xfs_trans_alloc(mp, &M_RES(mp)->tr_fsyncts, 0, 0, 0, &tp))
> return;
> xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> @@ -1053,7 +1047,7 @@ xfs_fs_free_cached_objects(
> static const struct super_operations xfs_super_operations = {
> .alloc_inode = xfs_fs_alloc_inode,
> .destroy_inode = xfs_fs_destroy_inode,
> - .dirty_inode = xfs_fs_dirty_inode,
> + .lazytime_expired = xfs_fs_lazytime_expired,
> .drop_inode = xfs_fs_drop_inode,
> .put_super = xfs_fs_put_super,
> .sync_fs = xfs_fs_sync_fs,
This means XFS no longer updates/logs the current timestamp because
->dirty_inode(I_DIRTY_SYNC) is no longer called for XFS) before
->fsync flushes the inode data and metadata changes to the journal.
Hence the current in-memory timestamps are not present in the log
before the fsync is run as so we violate the fsync guarantees
lazytime gives for timestamp updates....
I haven't quite got it straight in my head if the iput() case has
similar problems, but the fsync case definitely looks broken.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
______________________________________________________
Linux MTD discussion mailing list
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-mtd/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-26 3:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-25 12:28 lazytime fixes Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-25 12:28 ` [PATCH 1/4] ubifs: remove broken lazytime support Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-25 15:51 ` Sergei Shtylyov
2020-03-25 12:28 ` [PATCH 2/4] fs: avoid double-writing the inode on a lazytime expiration Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-25 15:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-26 3:22 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2020-03-26 17:01 ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-25 12:28 ` [PATCH 3/4] fs: don't call ->dirty_inode for lazytime timestamp updates Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-25 12:28 ` [PATCH 4/4] fs: clean up generic_update_time a bit Christoph Hellwig
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=20200326032212.GN10776@dread.disaster.area \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=chao@kernel.org \
--cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--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).