| 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: <20140602031526.GS14410@dastard>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 13:15:26 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Daniel Phillips <daniel@...nq.net>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] Add a super operation for writeback
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 02:41:02PM -0700, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> ---
> From: Daniel Phillips <daniel@...3.org>
> Subject: [PATCH] Add a super operation for writeback
>
> Add a "writeback" super operation to be called in the
> form:
>
> progress = sb->s_op->writeback(sb, &wbc, &pages);
>
> The filesystem is expected to flush some inodes to disk
> and return progress of at least 1, or if no inodes are
> flushed, return progress of zero. The filesystem should
> try to flush at least the number of pages specified in
> *pages, or if that is not possible, return approximately
> the number of pages not flushed into *pages.
>
> Within the ->writeback callback, the filesystem should
> call inode_writeback_done(inode) for each inode flushed
> (and therefore set clean) or inode_writeback_touch(inode)
> for any inode that will be retained dirty in cache.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Phillips <daniel@...3.org>
> Signed-off-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>
> ---
>
> fs/fs-writeback.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> include/linux/fs.h | 4 +++
> 2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff -puN fs/fs-writeback.c~core-writeback fs/fs-writeback.c
> --- linux-tux3/fs/fs-writeback.c~core-writeback 2014-05-31 06:43:19.416031712 +0900
> +++ linux-tux3-hirofumi/fs/fs-writeback.c 2014-05-31 06:44:46.087904373 +0900
> @@ -192,6 +192,35 @@ void inode_wb_list_del(struct inode *ino
> }
>
> /*
> + * Remove inode from writeback list if clean.
> + */
> +void inode_writeback_done(struct inode *inode)
> +{
> + struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode_to_bdi(inode);
> +
> + spin_lock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
> + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> + if (!(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY))
> + list_del_init(&inode->i_wb_list);
> + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> + spin_unlock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(inode_writeback_done);
> +
> +/*
> + * Add inode to writeback dirty list with current time.
> + */
> +void inode_writeback_touch(struct inode *inode)
> +{
> + struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode->i_sb->s_bdi;
> + spin_lock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
> + inode->dirtied_when = jiffies;
> + list_move(&inode->i_wb_list, &bdi->wb.b_dirty);
> + spin_unlock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(inode_writeback_touch);
You should be able to use redirty_tail() for this....
Hmmmm - this is using the wb dirty lists and locks, but you
don't pass the wb structure to the writeback callout? That seem
wrong to me - why would you bother manipulating these lists if you
aren't using them to track dirty inodes in the first place?
> +
> +/*
> * Redirty an inode: set its when-it-was dirtied timestamp and move it to the
> * furthest end of its superblock's dirty-inode list.
> *
> @@ -593,9 +622,9 @@ static long writeback_chunk_size(struct
> *
> * Return the number of pages and/or inodes written.
> */
> -static long writeback_sb_inodes(struct super_block *sb,
> - struct bdi_writeback *wb,
> - struct wb_writeback_work *work)
> +static long __writeback_sb_inodes(struct super_block *sb,
> + struct bdi_writeback *wb,
> + struct wb_writeback_work *work)
> {
> struct writeback_control wbc = {
> .sync_mode = work->sync_mode,
> @@ -710,6 +739,30 @@ static long writeback_sb_inodes(struct s
> return wrote;
> }
>
> +static long writeback_sb_inodes(struct super_block *sb,
> + struct bdi_writeback *wb,
> + struct wb_writeback_work *work)
> +{
> + if (sb->s_op->writeback) {
> + struct writeback_control wbc = {
> + .sync_mode = work->sync_mode,
> + .tagged_writepages = work->tagged_writepages,
> + .for_kupdate = work->for_kupdate,
> + .for_background = work->for_background,
> + .for_sync = work->for_sync,
> + .range_cyclic = work->range_cyclic,
> + };
> + long ret;
> +
> + spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
> + ret = sb->s_op->writeback(sb, &wbc, &work->nr_pages);
> + spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
> + return ret;
> + }
> +
> + return __writeback_sb_inodes(sb, wb, work);
> +}
The first thing that __writeback_sb_inodes() does is create a struct
writeback_control from the wb_writeback_work. That should be done
here and passed to __writeback_sb_inodes(), which should be renamed
"generic_writeback_sb_inodes()". Also, all the fields in the wbc
need to be initialised correctly (i.e including range_start/end).
Further, a writeback implementation will need to use the generic bdi
list and lock structures and so we need to pass the bdi_writeback.
Similarly, if we are going to pass nr_pages, we might as well pass
the entire work structure.
Finally, I don't like the way the wb->list_lock is treated
differently by this code. I suspect that we need to rationalise the
layering of the wb->list_lock as it is currently not clear what it
protects and what (nested) layers of the writeback code actually
require it.
What I'd like to see is this work:
struct super_ops ... = {
....
.writeback = generic_writeback_sb_inodes,
....
And that means writeback_sb_inodes() would become:
static long writeback_sb_inodes(struct super_block *sb,
struct bdi_writeback *wb,
struct wb_writeback_work *work)
{
struct writeback_control wbc = {
.sync_mode = work->sync_mode,
.tagged_writepages = work->tagged_writepages,
.for_kupdate = work->for_kupdate,
.for_background = work->for_background,
.for_sync = work->for_sync,
.range_cyclic = work->range_cyclic,
.range_start = 0,
.range_end = LLONG_MAX,
};
if (sb->s_op->writeback)
return sb->s_op->writeback(sb, wb, work, &wbc);
return generic_writeback_sb_inodes(sb, wb, work, &wbc);
}
And the higher/lower layers deal with wb->list_lock appropriately.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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