| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <1214348318.27507.330.camel@BVR-FS.beaverton.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 15:58:38 -0700
From: Mingming <cmm@...ibm.com>
To: Holger Kiehl <Holger.Kiehl@....de>
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Solofo.Ramangalahy@...l.net, Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@...com>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Performance of ext4
On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 21:12 +0000, Holger Kiehl wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 08:37:21AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >> On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 05:31:32PM -0700, Mingming wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, 2008-06-23 at 23:15 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I found one place where we fail to update i_disksize. Can you try this
> >>>> patch ?
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> >>>> index 33f940b..9fa737f 100644
> >>>> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> >>>> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> >>>> @@ -1620,7 +1620,10 @@ static int ext4_da_writepage(struct page *page,
> >>>> loff_t size;
> >>>> unsigned long len;
> >>>> handle_t *handle = NULL;
> >>>> + ext4_lblk_t block;
> >>>> + loff_t disksize;
> >>>> struct buffer_head *page_bufs;
> >>>> + struct buffer_head *bh, *head;
> >>>> struct inode *inode = page->mapping->host;
> >>>>
> >>>> handle = ext4_journal_current_handle();
> >>>> @@ -1662,6 +1665,38 @@ static int ext4_da_writepage(struct page *page,
> >>>> else
> >>>> ret = block_write_full_page(page, ext4_da_get_block_write, wbc);
> >>>>
> >>>> + if (ret)
> >>>> + return ret;
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * When called via shrink_page_list and if we don't have any unmapped
> >>>> + * buffer_head we still could have written some new content in an
> >>>> + * already mapped buffer. That means we need to extent i_disksize here
> >>>> + */
> >>>
> >>> In this case(when extend the file without need block allocation),
> >>> wouldn't make sense to update the i_disksize at write_end() time? So
> >>> that the window of i_size different from i_disksize could be much
> >>> smaller in this case.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Something like below? (untested)
> >>
> >> In this case you will have to start a transaction in write_begin . With
> >> the below code transaction is started inside page_lock. Also I don't
> >> think we need needed_blocks credit just 1 should be enough because we
> >> are not doing any block allocation here. We just need to update the
> >> inode block.
> >>
> >>
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > index 33f940b..bc925c5 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> > @@ -1770,6 +1770,7 @@ static int ext4_da_write_begin(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping,
> > struct page *page;
> > pgoff_t index;
> > unsigned from, to;
> > + handle_t *handle;
> > struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
> >
> > index = pos >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT;
> > @@ -1777,6 +1778,17 @@ static int ext4_da_write_begin(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping,
> > to = from + len;
> >
> > retry:
> > + /*
> > + * If we are writing towards the end of an already mapped
> > + * buffer_head, we don't do any block allocation. But we
> > + * need to update i_disksize.
> > + */
> > + handle = ext4_journal_start(inode, 1);
> > + if (IS_ERR(handle)) {
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(handle);
> > + goto out;
> > + }
> > +
> > page = __grab_cache_page(mapping, index);
> > if (!page)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > @@ -1786,15 +1798,63 @@ static int ext4_da_write_begin(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping,
> > ext4_da_get_block_prep);
> > if (ret < 0) {
> > unlock_page(page);
> > + ext4_journal_stop(handle);
> > page_cache_release(page);
> > }
> >
> > if (ret == -ENOSPC && ext4_should_retry_alloc(inode->i_sb, &retries))
> > goto retry;
> >
> > +out:
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +static int ext4_da_write_end(struct file *file,
> > + struct address_space *mapping,
> > + loff_t pos, unsigned len, unsigned copied,
> > + struct page *page, void *fsdata)
> > +{
> > + loff_t new_i_size;
> > + unsigned from, to;
> > + int ret = 0, ret2;
> > + struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
> > + handle_t *handle = ext4_journal_current_handle();
> > +
> > + from = pos & (PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - 1);
> > + to = from + len;
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * generic_write_end() will run mark_inode_dirty() if i_size
> > + * changes. So let's piggyback the i_disksize mark_inode_dirty
> > + * into that.
> > + */
> > +
> > + new_i_size = pos + copied;
> > + if (new_i_size > EXT4_I(inode)->i_disksize)
> > + if (!walk_page_buffers(NULL, page_buffers(page),
> > + 0, len, NULL,
> > + ext4_bh_unmapped_or_delay)) {
> > + /*
> > + * Updating i_disksize when extending file without
> > + * need block allocation
> > + */
> > + if (ext4_should_order_data(inode))
> > + ret = ext4_jbd2_file_inode(handle, inode);
> > +
> > + EXT4_I(inode)->i_disksize = new_i_size;
> > + }
> > + ret2 = generic_write_end(file, mapping, pos,
> > + len, copied, page, fsdata);
> > + copied = ret2;
> > + if (ret2 < 0)
> > + ret = ret2;
> > + ret2 = ext4_journal_stop(handle);
> > + if (!ret)
> > + ret = ret2;
> > +
> > + return ret ? ret : copied;
> > +}
> > +
> > static void ext4_da_invalidatepage(struct page *page, unsigned long offset)
> > {
> > /*
> > @@ -2250,7 +2310,7 @@ static int ext4_journalled_set_page_dirty(struct page *page)
> > .writepages = ext4_da_writepages,
> > .sync_page = block_sync_page,
> > .write_begin = ext4_da_write_begin,
> > - .write_end = generic_write_end,
> > + .write_end = ext4_da_write_end,
> > .bmap = ext4_bmap,
> > .invalidatepage = ext4_da_invalidatepage,
> > .releasepage = ext4_releasepage,
> >
> Yes, with this patch applied on top of latest patch queue I no longer
> get truncated files, after running a short test. Tomorrow I will do some
> more thorough testing and use the patch you have send to me in a separate
> mail. The above patch did not apply but it was easy to apply by hand.
Thanks for quick response and test. I have updated the patch queue with
above patch merged. Please let me know if you still see apply issue and
file size update issue with current patch queue.
Regards,
Mingming
--
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