From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37CFEC3F68F for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:31:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC0B2467E for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:31:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726205AbgAWKb1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jan 2020 05:31:27 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:54946 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726194AbgAWKb0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jan 2020 05:31:26 -0500 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0256B220; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:31:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: by quack2.suse.cz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 60F471E0B01; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:31:21 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:31:21 +0100 From: Jan Kara To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Jan Kara , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Jeff Layton , Christoph Hellwig , Chris Mason Subject: Re: [RFC v2 0/9] Replacing the readpages a_op Message-ID: <20200123103121.GB5728@quack2.suse.cz> References: <20200115023843.31325-1-willy@infradead.org> <20200121113627.GA1746@quack2.suse.cz> <20200121214845.GA14467@bombadil.infradead.org> <20200122094414.GC12845@quack2.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200122094414.GC12845@quack2.suse.cz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed 22-01-20 10:44:14, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 21-01-20 13:48:45, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 21, 2020 at 12:36:27PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > v2: Chris asked me to show what this would look like if we just have > > > > the implementation look up the pages in the page cache, and I managed > > > > to figure out some things I'd done wrong last time. It's even simpler > > > > than v1 (net 104 lines deleted). > > > > > > I have an unfinished patch series laying around that pulls the ->readpage > > > / ->readpages API in somewhat different direction so I'd like to discuss > > > whether it's possible to solve my problem using your API. The problem I > > > have is that currently some operations such as hole punching can race with > > > ->readpage / ->readpages like: > > > > > > CPU0 CPU1 > > > fallocate(fd, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE, off, len) > > > filemap_write_and_wait_range() > > > down_write(inode->i_rwsem); > > > truncate_pagecache_range(); > > > readahead(fd, off, len) > > > creates pages in page cache > > > looks up block mapping > > > removes blocks from inode and frees them > > > issues bio > > > - reads stale data - > > > potential security > > > issue > > > > > > Now how I wanted to address this is that I'd change the API convention for > > > ->readpage() so that we call it with the page unlocked and the function > > > would lock the page, check it's still OK, and do what it needs. And this > > > will allow ->readpage() and also ->readpages() to grab lock > > > (EXT4_I(inode)->i_mmap_sem in case of ext4) to synchronize with hole punching > > > while we are adding pages to page cache and mapping underlying blocks. > > > > > > Now your API makes even ->readpages() (actually ->readahead) called with > > > pages locked so that makes this approach problematic because of lock > > > inversions. So I'd prefer if we could keep the situation that ->readpages / > > > ->readahead gets called without any pages in page cache locked... > > > > I'm not a huge fan of that approach because it increases the number of > > atomic ops (right now, we __SetPageLocked on the page before adding it > > to i_pages). > > Yeah, good point. The per-page cost of locking may be noticeable. Thinking about this a bit more, we should be using ->readpages() to fill most of the data. And for ->readpages() there would be no additional overhead. Just for ->readpage() which should be rarely needed. We just need to come up with a good solution for filesystems that have ->readpage but not ->readpages. Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR