| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:17:27 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: cmm@...ibm.com, tytso@....edu, sandeen@...hat.com,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, adilger@....com
Subject: Re: [RFC] ext4: Semantics of delalloc,data=ordered
On Mon 16-06-08 23:41:52, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 07:20:46PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 05:05:33PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > Hi Aneesh,
> > > >
> > > > First, I'd like to see some short comment on what semantics
> > > > delalloc,data=ordered is going to have. At least I can imagine at least
> > > > two sensible approaches:
> > > > 1) All we guarantee is that user is not going to see uninitialized data.
> > > > We send writes to disk (and allocate blocks) whenever it fits our needs
> > > > (usually when pdflush finds them).
> > > > 2) We guarantee that when transaction commits, your data is on disk -
> > > > i.e., we allocate actual blocks on transaction commit.
> > > >
> > > > Both these possibilities have their pros and cons. Most importantly,
> > > > 1) gives better disk layout while 2) gives higher consistency
> > > > guarantees. Note that with 1), it can under some circumstances happen,
> > > > that after a crash you see block 1 and 3 of your 3-block-write on disk,
> > > > while block 2 is still a hole. 1) is easy to implement (you mostly did
> > > > it below), 2) is harder. I think there should be broader consensus on
> > > > what the semantics should be (changed subject to catch more attention
> > > > ;).
> > > >
> > > > A few comments to your patch are also below.
> > > >
> > > > Honza
> > >
> > > The way I was looking at ordered mode was, we only guarantee that the
> > > meta-data blocks corresponding to the data block allocated get committed
> > > only after the data-blocks are written to the disk. As long as we don't
> > > allocate blocks corresponding to a page we don't write the page to
> > > disk. This should also speed up the "sync slowness" that lot of people
> > > are reporting with ordered mode.
> > I'm not sure if it helps - tons of dirty data have to get to
> > transaction at some time even with delayed alloc and at that moment any
> > "interactive application" is going to be starved.
> >
> > > Can you explain
> > > "
> > > 1), it can under some circumstances happen, that after a crash you see
> > > block 1 and 3 of your 3-block-write on disk, while block 2 is still a hole.
> > > "
> > Imagine you have a file with blocks 1 and 3 allocated and block 2 is a
> > hole. You write blocks 1-3. Block 2 isn't allocated because of delalloc.
> > Now if inode is already in the current transaction's list, during commit
> > writes to blocks 1 and 3 will land on disk but write to block 2 will
> > happen only after pdflush finds it.
>
> And that should be fine with data=ordered mode right ?. Because since
> block 2 is not yet allocated we don't have associated meta-data. So
> even if we crash we have meta-data pointing to 1 and 3 and not 2. The
> problem is only when we write the meta-data pointing to block 2 and not
> block 2 itself ?.
Yes, it is correct. I may be just surprising (we didn't do things like
this in data=ordered mode before).
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > fs/ext4/inode.c | 169 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > > > fs/jbd2/commit.c | 41 ++++++++++++--
> > > > > 2 files changed, 198 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > > > > index 63355ab..7d87641 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > > > > @@ -1606,13 +1606,12 @@ static int ext4_bh_unmapped_or_delay(handle_t *handle, struct buffer_head *bh)
> > > > > return !buffer_mapped(bh) || buffer_delay(bh);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > -/* FIXME!! only support data=writeback mode */
> > > > > /*
> > > > > * get called vi ext4_da_writepages after taking page lock
> > > > > * We may end up doing block allocation here in case
> > > > > * mpage_da_map_blocks failed to allocate blocks.
> > > > > */
> > > > > -static int ext4_da_writepage(struct page *page,
> > > > > +static int ext4_da_writeback_writepage(struct page *page,
> > > > > struct writeback_control *wbc)
> > > > > {
> > > > > int ret = 0;
> > > > > @@ -1660,6 +1659,61 @@ static int ext4_da_writepage(struct page *page,
> > > > > return ret;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * get called vi ext4_da_writepages after taking page lock
> > > > > + * We may end up doing block allocation here in case
> > > > > + * mpage_da_map_blocks failed to allocate blocks.
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * We also get called via journal_submit_inode_data_buffers
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +static int ext4_da_ordered_writepage(struct page *page,
> > > > > + struct writeback_control *wbc)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + int ret = 0;
> > > > > + loff_t size;
> > > > > + unsigned long len;
> > > > > + handle_t *handle = NULL;
> > > > > + struct buffer_head *page_bufs;
> > > > > + struct inode *inode = page->mapping->host;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + handle = ext4_journal_current_handle();
> > > > > + if (!handle) {
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * This can happen when we aren't called via
> > > > > + * ext4_da_writepages() but directly (shrink_page_list).
> > > > > + * We cannot easily start a transaction here so we just skip
> > > > > + * writing the page in case we would have to do so.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + size = i_size_read(inode);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + page_bufs = page_buffers(page);
> > > > > + if (page->index == size >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT)
> > > > > + len = size & ~PAGE_CACHE_MASK;
> > > > > + else
> > > > > + len = PAGE_CACHE_SIZE;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (walk_page_buffers(NULL, page_bufs, 0,
> > > > > + len, NULL, ext4_bh_unmapped_or_delay)) {
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * We can't do block allocation under
> > > > > + * page lock without a handle . So redirty
> > > > > + * the page and return.
> > > > > + * We may reach here when we do a journal commit
> > > > > + * via journal_submit_inode_data_buffers.
> > > > > + * If we don't have mapping block we just ignore
> > > > > + * them
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + redirty_page_for_writepage(wbc, page);
> > > > > + unlock_page(page);
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + ret = block_write_full_page(page, ext4_da_get_block_write, wbc);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > +}
> > > > If you're going to use this writepage() implementation from commit
> > > > code, you cannot simply do redirty_page_for_writepage() and bail out
> > > > when there's an unmapped buffer. You must write out at least mapped
> > > > buffers to satisfy ordering guarantees (think of filesystems with
> > > > blocksize < page size).
> > >
> > > With delalloc is it possible to have a page that have some buffer_heads
> > > marked delay ?
> > I thought more about the case where some buffers are mapped and some
> > aren't (because there's a hole in the middle of the page)...
>
> With delalloc it won't be a problem. This is what i understood.
>
> We allocate blocks only during writepages. That means we allocate blocks
> and write then via block_write_full_page at the same time. Also we add
> meta-data to the journal list. We also add inode to the journal list.
> We also mark page_writeback on the page. Now when the journal_commit
> happens we again walk through the inode and try to write the page. The
> page may already have finished writeback by then or it may be in
> writeback. In both the case we won't actually be sending any data block to disk
> on journal commit. If is it in writeback we would have page_writeback
> set and journal commit would wait via filemap_fdatawait.
Ah, you are right. We need to ensure ordering only for new block
allocations and for them, everything is fine. Sorry for confusion.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists