linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] vfs: Make sys_sync() use fsync

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

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:29:08 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] vfs: Make sys_sync() use fsync_super() (version 2)

On Thu 23-04-09 12:57:36, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > +int __sync_blockdev(struct block_device *bdev, int wait)
> > +{
> > +	if (!bdev)
> > +		return 0;
> > +	if (!wait)
> > +		return filemap_flush(bdev->bd_inode->i_mapping);
> > +	return filemap_write_and_wait(bdev->bd_inode->i_mapping);
> > +}
> 
> I wonder if the filemap_flush for the async case really buys us much,
> all the async and then later sync writeback activities of the FS will
> redirty lots of bits of the blockdev mapping that we then have to write
> twice.
  Well, I think it does. Because if you call write_inode() with wait==1,
then filesystems usually do sync_dirty_buffer() for the buffer with inode.
But with wait==0 filesystems (e.g. ext2 and other "simple" filesystems)
just mark the buffer with inode dirty.  So sync_inodes_sb(sb, 0) just
dirties lots of buffers and then filemap_flush() submits all the IO more
effectively than doing sync_dirty_buffer() for each inode... But I guess it
deserves a comment.
  Also I'd think that async case submits most of the IO and later sync just
gathers last bits we might have skipped.
 
> > @@ -284,7 +277,12 @@ static int __fsync_super(struct super_block *sb)
> >   */
> >  int fsync_super(struct super_block *sb)
> >  {
> > -	return __fsync_super(sb);
> > +	int ret;
> > +
> > +	ret = __fsync_super(sb, 0);
> > +	if (ret < 0)
> > +		return ret;
> > +	return __fsync_super(sb, 1);
> 
> This async first then wait approach does have some benefits when syncing
> multiple filesystems, but I wonder if it isn't actually conta-productive
> when syncing a single one.
> 
> Maybe this should be a separate patch ontop to allow for more
> fine-grained benchmarking.
  But __fsync_super() previously did:
sync_inodes_sb(sb, 0);
...
sync_inodes_sb(sb, 1);
  So the change is only in calling write_super(), vfs_dq_sync() and
sync_fs() twice. I can certainly change the function to call vfs_dq_sync()
and write_super() only if wait == 1, so only sync_fs() would be called
twice. But then if someone uses __fsync_super() in future, he might get
surprised...

> >  /*
> > - * Call the ->sync_fs super_op against all filesystems which are r/w and
> > - * which implement it.
> > + * Sync all the data for all the filesystems (called by do_sync())
> 
> Your patch removes do_sync :)
  Yup, thanks.
 
> >  static void do_sync_work(struct work_struct *work)
> >  {
> > -	do_sync(0);
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Sync twice to reduce the possibility we skipped some inodes / pages
> > +	 * because they were temporarily locked
> > +	 */
> > +	sync_filesystems(0);
> > +	sync_filesystems(0);
> > +	printk("Emergency Sync complete\n");
> >  	kfree(work);
> 
> Ah, nice.  Good to have this out of the sys_sync path.
> 
> The patch looks generally good but I'll need some heavy testing.  I'll
> do some XFS testing with it ASAP.
  Great. I think the first (maybe first two) patch can go in quickly to fix
the bug and the others can go in after more serious testing.

									Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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/