Re: [PATCH v2 3/3] ovl: copy-up optimization for truncate

[Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net>]

 ---- 在 星期四, 2021-04-08 22:40:47 Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> 撰写 ----
 > On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 4:23 PM Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net> wrote:
 > >
 > >  ---- 在 星期三, 2021-04-07 15:52:15 Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> 撰写 ----
 > >  > On Wed, Apr 7, 2021 at 12:04 AM Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net> wrote:
 > >  > >
 > >  > > Currently truncate operation on the file which only has
 > >  > > lower will copy-up whole lower file and calling truncate(2)
 > >  > > on upper file. It is not efficient for the case which
 > >  > > truncates to much smaller size than lower file. This patch
 > >  > > tries to avoid unnecessary data copy and truncate operation
 > >  > > after copy-up.
 > >  > >
 > >  > > Signed-off-by: Chengguang Xu <cgxu519@mykernel.net>
 > >  > > ---
 > >  > >  fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c   | 18 +++++++++++-------
 > >  > >  fs/overlayfs/inode.c     |  9 ++++++++-
 > >  > >  fs/overlayfs/overlayfs.h |  2 +-
 > >  > >  3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
 > >  > >
 > >  > > diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c b/fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c
 > >  > > index a1a9a150405a..331cc32eac95 100644
 > >  > > --- a/fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c
 > >  > > +++ b/fs/overlayfs/copy_up.c
 > >  > > @@ -874,7 +874,7 @@ static int ovl_copy_up_meta_inode_data(struct ovl_copy_up_ctx *c)
 > >  > >  }
 > >  > >
 > >  > >  static int ovl_copy_up_one(struct dentry *parent, struct dentry *dentry,
 > >  > > -                          int flags)
 > >  > > +                          int flags, loff_t size)
 > >  > >  {
 > >  > >         int err;
 > >  > >         DEFINE_DELAYED_CALL(done);
 > >  > > @@ -911,6 +911,8 @@ static int ovl_copy_up_one(struct dentry *parent, struct dentry *dentry,
 > >  > >         /* maybe truncate regular file. this has no effect on dirs */
 > >  > >         if (flags & O_TRUNC)
 > >  > >                 ctx.stat.size = 0;
 > >  > > +       if (size)
 > >  > > +               ctx.stat.size = size;
 > >  >
 > >  > Not sure about this, but *maybe* instead we re-interpret O_TRUNC
 > >  > internally as "either O_TRUNC or truncate()" and then:
 > >  >          if (flags & O_TRUNC)
 > >  >                  ctx.stat.size = size;
 > >  >
 > >  > It would simplify the logic in ovl_copy_up_with_data().
 > >  > If you do that, put a comment to clarify that special meaning.
 > >  >
 > >  > >
 > >  > >         if (S_ISLNK(ctx.stat.mode)) {
 > >  > >                 ctx.link = vfs_get_link(ctx.lowerpath.dentry, &done);
 > >  > > @@ -937,7 +939,7 @@ static int ovl_copy_up_one(struct dentry *parent, struct dentry *dentry,
 > >  > >         return err;
 > >  > >  }
 > >  > >
 > >  > > -static int ovl_copy_up_flags(struct dentry *dentry, int flags)
 > >  > > +static int ovl_copy_up_flags(struct dentry *dentry, int flags, loff_t size)
 > >  > >  {
 > >  > >         int err = 0;
 > >  > >         const struct cred *old_cred = ovl_override_creds(dentry->d_sb);
 > >  > > @@ -970,7 +972,7 @@ static int ovl_copy_up_flags(struct dentry *dentry, int flags)
 > >  > >                         next = parent;
 > >  > >                 }
 > >  > >
 > >  > > -               err = ovl_copy_up_one(parent, next, flags);
 > >  > > +               err = ovl_copy_up_one(parent, next, flags, size);
 > >  > >
 > >  > >                 dput(parent);
 > >  > >                 dput(next);
 > >  > > @@ -1002,7 +1004,7 @@ int ovl_maybe_copy_up(struct dentry *dentry, int flags)
 > >  > >         if (ovl_open_need_copy_up(dentry, flags)) {
 > >  > >                 err = ovl_want_write(dentry);
 > >  > >                 if (!err) {
 > >  > > -                       err = ovl_copy_up_flags(dentry, flags);
 > >  > > +                       err = ovl_copy_up_flags(dentry, flags, 0);
 > >  > >                         ovl_drop_write(dentry);
 > >  > >                 }
 > >  > >         }
 > >  > > @@ -1010,12 +1012,14 @@ int ovl_maybe_copy_up(struct dentry *dentry, int flags)
 > >  > >         return err;
 > >  > >  }
 > >  > >
 > >  > > -int ovl_copy_up_with_data(struct dentry *dentry)
 > >  > > +int ovl_copy_up_with_data(struct dentry *dentry, loff_t size)
 > >  > >  {
 > >  > > -       return ovl_copy_up_flags(dentry, O_WRONLY);
 > >  > > +       if (size)
 > >  > > +               return ovl_copy_up_flags(dentry, O_WRONLY, size);
 > >  > > +       return  ovl_copy_up_flags(dentry, O_TRUNC | O_WRONLY, 0);
 > >  >
 > >  > Best get rid of this helper and put this logic in ovl_setattr(). see below.
 > >  >
 > >  > >  }
 > >  > >
 > >  > >  int ovl_copy_up(struct dentry *dentry)
 > >  > >  {
 > >  > > -       return ovl_copy_up_flags(dentry, 0);
 > >  > > +       return ovl_copy_up_flags(dentry, 0, 0);
 > >  > >  }
 > >  > > diff --git a/fs/overlayfs/inode.c b/fs/overlayfs/inode.c
 > >  > > index cf41bcb664bc..92f274844947 100644
 > >  > > --- a/fs/overlayfs/inode.c
 > >  > > +++ b/fs/overlayfs/inode.c
 > >  > > @@ -43,13 +43,20 @@ int ovl_setattr(struct dentry *dentry, struct iattr *attr)
 > >  > >         if (!full_copy_up)
 > >  > >                 err = ovl_copy_up(dentry);
 > >  > >         else
 > >  > > -               err = ovl_copy_up_with_data(dentry);
 > >  > > +               err = ovl_copy_up_with_data(dentry, attr->ia_size);
 > >  >
 > >  > You do not know that ia_size is valid here.
 > >
 > > I think we don't have to worry about validation of ia_size here,
 > > vfs layer has already done simple check for specified size and upper fs
 > > will return error when we set invalid file size after copy-up. Am I missing
 > > something?
 > >
 > 
 > ovl_setattr() will be called from any number of places where ia_size has
 > uninitialized value, such as vfs_utimes().
 > 
 > You are not allowed to access it without checking
 > (attr->ia_valid & ATTR_SIZE) which here above you don't.
 > 

Currently, (attr->ia_valid & ATTR_SIZE) is equal to var full_copy_up,
so the size will be valid in this case.

 > >
 > >  > Instead of using this if/else and full_copy_up var, use vars 'flags'
 > >  > and 'size' and call ovl_copy_up_flags().
 > >  > Instead of full_copy_up = true, set flags and size.
 > >  > Then you may also remove ovl_copy_up_with_data() which has no other
 > >  > callers.
 > >  >
 > >  > >         if (!err) {
 > >  > >                 struct inode *winode = NULL;
 > >  > >
 > >  > >                 upperdentry = ovl_dentry_upper(dentry);
 > >  > >
 > >  > >                 if (attr->ia_valid & ATTR_SIZE) {
 > >  > > +                       if (full_copy_up && !(attr->ia_valid & ~ATTR_SIZE)) {
 > >  > > +                               inode_lock(upperdentry->d_inode);
 > >  > > +                               ovl_copyattr(upperdentry->d_inode, dentry->d_inode);
 > >  > > +                               inode_unlock(upperdentry->d_inode);
 > >  >
 > >  > All that this is saving is an extra notify_change() call and I am not sure it is
 > >  > worth the special casing.
 > >  >
 > >  > Also, I think that is a bug and would make xfstest overlay/013 fail.
 > >
 > > I ran testcases in overlay directory and didn't find failure related to this change.
 > > However, generic/313 failed unexpectedly, the reason is I used full_copy_up var
 > > wrongly, for the file which has upper still needs to go through notify_change().
 > >
 > > By the way, I don't fully understand calling copy-up function(ovl_copy_up() or ovl_copy_up_with_data())
 > > even for the file which has upper. Maybe it's better to optimize this part first in separated patch.
 > >
 > 
 > There is a difference between "has upper" and "has upper data".
 > It's related to metacopy.
 > 

I see, my point here is we can skip calling copy-up function for files which already have upper data.



 > >
 > >  > When lower file is being executed, its true that we copy up anyway
 > >  > and that it is safe to do that, but test and applications expect to get
 > >  > ETXTBSY error all the same.
 > >
 > > Actually we have already do the check and return ETXTBSY error, see below.
 > >
 > > err = -ETXTBSY;
 > > if (atomic_read(&realinode->i_writecount) < 0)
 > >         goto out_drop_write;
 > >
 > 
 > Yes, my point exactly. Your code does goto out_drop_write; before that check
 > so it will skip it.
 > 

No, if you look at the code more closely , you'll find the goto in my code is actually after the check, :-).

Thanks,
Chengguang