[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <5C55DFF2-6593-41FD-A161-D99331E419E3@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:02:08 -0500
From: Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>
To: suparna@...ibm.com
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...os.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Ananiev, Leonid I" <leonid.i.ananiev@...el.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@...ibm.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] aio: fix kernel bug when page is temporally busy
On Feb 9, 2007, at 6:05 AM, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 11:40:27AM +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>> On Fri, 9 Feb 2007, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>
>>>> @@ -1204,7 +1204,7 @@ generic_file_aio_read(struct kiocb *iocb,
>>>> const struct iovec *iov,
>>>> do_generic_file_read(filp,ppos,&desc,file_read_actor);
>>>> retval += desc.written;
>>>> if (desc.error) {
>>>> - retval = retval ?: desc.error;
>>>> + retval = desc.error;
I was worried about this too.
> blocking. The high level AIO code (see aio_rw_vect_rety) has the
> ability
> to handle this.
I had missed this, and yeah, that's some level of comfort.
But I'm not convinced we can guarantee that's safe. The positive
return code that aio_rw_vect_retry() sees is telling it that some IO
has completed and, arguably, that no more IO is in flight. If we
return partial progress from generic_file_aio_read() while we have an
iocb in a wait queue then we are adding yet another invariant. That
while an iocb is pending from a previous call down the call chain, we
can't return a non-aio negative error. Doing so would cause fs/aio.c
to complete while there is still an iocb on a wait queue from a
previous retry attempt. Right?
I also noticed something just now while poking around these paths to
see if I could get the start of generic_file_aio_read() to fail when
it had previously succeeded. What's to stop another task from racing
to set O_DIRECT between retries?
That sounds like a pretty hilarious way to get a read retry to fail
due to buffer misalignment while a previously buffered instance of it
is still in flight. Hi-larious.
In thinking about this a discussing it with Chris a bit, I wonder if
the right fix isn't to refuse changing O_DIRECT via setfl() once any
IO paths have started on the filp. Something like:
filp->frozen_flags |= O_DIRECT
at the start of paths and check it in setfl()?
Are we similarly worried about O_APPEND?
- z
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists