[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4F4CBDA1.1080302@msgid.tls.msk.ru>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 15:42:25 +0400
From: Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
To: stable@...nel.org
CC: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: what happened with dccaf33fa37 "ext4: flush any pending end_io
requests before DIO" for 3.0?
Is there something wrong with my question? I asked it 1.5 months ago...
Meanwhile, we're using this patch on our database server since
Aug-2011, and it appears to work correctly - direct and buffered
I/O works together without surprizes. Without this patch, I see
unexpected results.
Thanks,
/mjt
On 01.12.2011 00:38, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Back in August 2011, a commit has been tagged to be included
> into stable, this one:
>
> commit dccaf33fa37a1bc5d651baeb3bfeb6becb86597b
> Author: Jiaying Zhang <jiayingz@...gle.com>
> Date: Fri Aug 19 19:13:32 2011 -0400
>
> ext4: flush any pending end_io requests before DIO reads w/dioread_nolock
>
> There is a race between ext4 buffer write and direct_IO read with
> dioread_nolock mount option enabled. The problem is that we clear
> PageWriteback flag during end_io time but will do
> uninitialized-to-initialized extent conversion later with dioread_nolock.
> If an O_direct read request comes in during this period, ext4 will return
> zero instead of the recently written data.
>
> This patch checks whether there are any pending uninitialized-to-initialized
> extent conversion requests before doing O_direct read to close the race.
> Note that this is just a bandaid fix. The fundamental issue is that we
> clear PageWriteback flag before we really complete an IO, which is
> problem-prone. To fix the fundamental issue, we may need to implement an
> extent tree cache that we can use to look up pending to-be-converted extents.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jiaying Zhang <jiayingz@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
> Cc: stable@...nel.org
>
>
> There was one more ext4 commit at that time, which made its way into
> stable but this one did not.
>
> I wonder if the reason for that was the fact that it needed a small
> "backport" for 3.0, since in 3.1+ the code has been moved into another
> file, and the context is slightly different. In that case, attached
> is the "backport" which we use with 3.0.x since that time.
>
> Thanks!
>
> /mjt
--
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