Message-ID: <20090724180225.GA29851@skywalker>
Date:	Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:32:25 +0530
From:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Curt Wohlgemuth <curtw@...gle.com>
Cc:	Mingming <cmm@...ibm.com>, Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>,
	"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
Subject: Re: Fallocate and DirectIO

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 09:30:08AM -0700, Curt Wohlgemuth wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 5:56 PM, Mingming<cmm@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2009-07-23 at 08:56 -0700, Curt Wohlgemuth wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 6:27 PM, Curt Wohlgemuth<curtw@...gle.com> wrote:
> >> > I spent a bit of time looking at this today.
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Theodore Tso<tytso@....edu> wrote:
> >> >> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 06:01:12PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> >> >>> Hi,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I noticed yesterday that a write to fallocate
> >> >>> space via directIO results in fallback to buffer_IO. ie the userspace
> >> >>> pages get copied to the page cache and then call a sync.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I guess this defeat the purpose of using directIO. May be we should
> >> >>> consider this a high priority bug.
> >> >
> >> > My simple experiment -- without a journal -- shows that you're
> >> > observation is correct.  *Except* if FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE is used in
> >> > the fallocate() call, in which case the page cache is *not* used.
> >> >
> >> > Pseudo-code example:
> >> >
> >> >  open(O_DIRECT)
> >> >  fallocate(mode, 512MB)
> >> >  while (! written 100MB)
> >> >     write(64K)
> >> >  close()
> >> >
> >> > If mode == FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE, then no page cache is used.
> >> > Otherwise, we *do* go through the page cache.
> >> >
> >> > It comes down to the fact that, since the i_size is not updated with
> >> > KEEP_SIZE, then ext4_get_block() is called with create = 1, since the
> >> > block that's needed is "beyond" the file end.
> >>
> > I think so.
> > In the case of KEEP_SIZE, get_block() is called with create=1 before dio
> > submit the real data IO, thus dio get a chance to convert the
> > uninitalized extents to initialized before returns back to the caller.
> 
> Ah, I see this now in ext4_direct_IO().  Thanks.
> 
> > But in the case of non KEEP_SIZE, i.e. updating i_size after fallocate()
> > case, we now have to fall back to buffered IO to ensure the extents
> > conversion is happened in an ordering. Because if we convert the extents
> > before submit the IO, and this conversion reached to disk, if system
> > crash before the real data IO finished, then it could expose the stale
> > data out, as the extent has already marked "initialized".
> 
> Yes, that makes sense -- since i_size already covers the formerly
> uninitialized, now initialized, extents.
> 
> >> Ted, given your concerns over the performance impact of updating the
> >> extents during direct I/O writes, it would seem that the fact that
> >> when KEEP_SIZE is specified we do the DMA (and don't go through the
> >> page cache) would be a problem/bug.  At least, it seems that the
> >> performance issue is the same regardless of whether KEEP_SIZE is used
> >> on the fallocate or not: in both we're dealing with an uninitialized
> >> extent.  Do you agree?
> >
> > Here is what I thought...
> >
> > I think updating the extents itself is not a big performance concern, In
> > the non KEEP_SIZE case, if we don't want to fall back to buffered IO,
> > ext4 DIO has to wait for the journal to commit the transaction which
> > converts extents to complete, before DIO could return back apps, this
> > could be a big latency. That seems what xfs does.
> 
> Wouldn't this still be an exposure to stale data?  The only way for
> this to work, if i_size already covers the uninit extents, is to make
> sure the data goes to disk before the extents get converted and
> committed.  Since the extents are converted in the ext4_get_block()
> path, before DIO actually performs the data write, this seems to be
> too late.
> 
> > For KEEP_SIZE case, The conversion actually could happen before the
> > related IO reach to disk, I guess the oraph inode list protects stale
> > data get exposed in this case.
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't follow you here.
> 
> >> I'm exploring (a) what this performance penalty is for the journal
> >> commit; and (b) can we at least avoid the page cache if your
> >> conditions above (no journal commit; no new extent blocks) are met.
> >
> > In fact, in the case of no journal, as long as the extents conversion
> > happens after the data IO reach to disk, it should be safe, am I right?
> > If system crash before the extent conversion finish, we only lost
> > recently updated IO, but won't expose the stale data out, as the extents
> > is still marked as uninitialized.
> 
> But again, the extent conversion (and mark_inode_dirty()) happens at
> get_block time, before the data goes to disk.
> 
> For KEEP_SIZE, this isn't an exposure because i_size prevents the data
> from being read.  But without KEEP_SIZE, this would seem to be a
> problem, right?
> 
> (From a practical perspective, there's also a problem getting real DIO
> to work without KEEP_SIZE in the fallocate():  the decision to send
> "create=0" to ext4_get_block() happens in VFS code, and there's no way
> to tell in the get_block path that "this is a 'no create' for a write,
> vs. a read.)

What we need is to track I/O's untill they hit the disk. This will
help us to do data=guarded and also help in the above case. So
for directIO we should use blockdev_direct_IO_own_locking and the get_block
used should split the uninit extent the needed way but still mark it
uninit. That would make sure a read will see the uninit extent and return
zero as expected. Now on IO completion we should mark split uninit extent
as init.

-aneesh
--
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