Message-ID: <20160108194306.GA17518@jaegeuk.aosp>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jan 2016 11:43:06 -0800
From:	Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
To:	Chao Yu <chao2.yu@...sung.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: support revoking atomic written
 pages

On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 08:05:52PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
> 
> Any progress on this patch?

Swamped. Will do.

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chao Yu [mailto:chao@...nel.org]
> > Sent: Friday, January 01, 2016 8:14 PM
> > To: Jaegeuk Kim
> > Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
> > Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: support revoking atomic written pages
> > 
> > Hi Jaegeuk,
> > 
> > On 1/1/16 11:50 AM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > Hi Chao,
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > >>>>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 11:12:36AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> > >>>>>> f2fs support atomic write with following semantics:
> > >>>>>> 1. open db file
> > >>>>>> 2. ioctl start atomic write
> > >>>>>> 3. (write db file) * n
> > >>>>>> 4. ioctl commit atomic write
> > >>>>>> 5. close db file
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> With this flow we can avoid file becoming corrupted when abnormal power
> > >>>>>> cut, because we hold data of transaction in referenced pages linked in
> > >>>>>> inmem_pages list of inode, but without setting them dirty, so these data
> > >>>>>> won't be persisted unless we commit them in step 4.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> But we should still hold journal db file in memory by using volatile write,
> > >>>>>> because our semantics of 'atomic write support' is not full, in step 4, we
> > >>>>>> could be fail to submit all dirty data of transaction, once partial dirty
> > >>>>>> data was committed in storage, db file should be corrupted, in this case,
> > >>>>>> we should use journal db to recover the original data in db file.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Originally, IOC_ABORT_VOLATILE_WRITE was supposed to handle commit failures,
> > >>>>> since database should get its error literally.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So, the only thing that we need to do is keeping journal data for further db
> > >>>>> recovery.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> IMO, if we really support *atomic* interface, we don't need any journal data
> > >>>> kept by user, because f2fs already have it in its storage since we always
> > >>>> trigger OPU for pages written in atomic-write opened file, f2fs can easily try
> > >>>> to revoke (replace old to new in metadata) when any failure exist in atomic
> > >>>> write process.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yeah, so current design does not fully support atomic writes. IOWs, volatile
> > >>> writes for journal files should be used together to minimize sqlite change as
> > >>> much as possible.
> > >>>
> > >>>> But in current design, we still hold journal data in memory for recovering for
> > >>>> *rare* failure case. I think there are several issues:
> > >>>> a) most of time, we are in concurrent scenario, so if large number of journal
> > >>>> db files were opened simultaneously, we are under big memory pressure.
> > >>>
> > >>> In current android, I've seen that this is not a big concern. Even there is
> > >>> memory pressure, f2fs flushes volatile pages.
> > >>
> > >> When I change to redirty all volatile pages in ->writepage, android seems go
> > >> into an infinite loop when doing recovery flow of f2fs data partition in startup.
> > >>
> > >> if (f2fs_is_volatile_file(inode))
> > >> 	goto redirty_out;
> > >
> > > Where did you put this? It doesn't flush at all? Why?
> > 
> > Original place in ->writepage, just remove two other conditions.
> > 
> > To avoid potential random writebacking of dirty page in journal which
> > cause unpredicted corrupting in journal.
> > 
> > > Practically, the peak amount of journal writes depend on how many transactions
> > > are processing concurrently.
> > > I mean, in-memory pages are dropped at the end of every transaction.
> > > You can check the number of pages through f2fs_stat on your phone.
> > >
> > >> I didn't dig details, but I think there may be a little risk for this design.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>> b) If we are out of memory, reclaimer tries to write page of journal db into
> > >>>> disk, it will destroy db file.
> > >>>
> > >>> I don't understand. Could you elaborate why journal writes can corrupt db?
> > >>
> > >> Normally, we keep pages of journal in memory, but partial page in journal
> > >> will be write out to device by reclaimer when out of memory. So this journal
> > >> may have valid data in its log head, but with corrupted data, then after
> > >> abnormal powe-cut, recovery with this journal before a transaction will
> > >> destroy db. Right?
> > >
> > > Just think about sqlite without this feature.
> > > Broken journal is pretty normal case for sqlite.
> > 
> > Maybe, if it is caused by bug or design issue of software, no matter db system
> > or filesystem, we should try our best to fix it to avoid generating broken journals.
> > 
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>>> c) Though, we have journal db file, we will face failure of recovering db file
> > >>>> from journal db due to ENOMEM or EIO, then db file will be corrupted.
> > >>>
> > >>> Do you mean the failure of recovering db with a complete journal?
> > >>> Why do we have to handle that? That's a database stuff, IMO.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, just list for indicating we will face the same issue which is hard to
> > >> handle both in original design and new design, so the inner revoking failure
> > >> issue would not be a weak point or flaw of new design.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>> d) Recovery flow will make data page dirty, triggering both data stream and
> > >>>> metadata stream, there should be more IOs than in inner revoking in
> > >>>> atomic-interface.
> > >>>
> > >>> Well, do you mean there is no need to recover db after revoking?
> > >>
> > >> Yes, revoking make the same effect like the recovery of sqlite, so after
> > >> revoking, recovery is no need.
> > >
> > > Logically, it doesn't make sense. If there is a valid journal file, it should
> > > redo the previous transaction. No?
> > 
> > As we know, in sqlite, before we commit a transaction, we will use journal to
> > record original data of pages which will be updated in following transaction, so
> > in following if a) abnormal power-cut, b) commit error, c) redo command was
> > triggered by user, we will recover db with journal.
> > 
> > Ideally, if we support atomic write interface, in there should always return two
> > status in atomic write interface: success or fail. If success, transaction was
> > committed, otherwise, it looks like nothing happened, user will be told
> > transaction was failed. Then, journals in sqlite could no longer be used,
> > eventually no journal, no recovery.
> > 
> > The only thing we should concern is inner failure (e.g. ENOMEM, ENOSPC) of
> > revoking in commit interface since it could destroy db file permanently w/o
> > journal. IMO, some optimization could be done for these cases:
> > 1. ENOMEM: enable retrying or mark accessed flag in page in advance.
> > 2. ENOSPC: preallocate blocks for node blocks and data blocks.
> > 
> > These optimizations couldn't guarantee no failure in revoking operation
> > completely, luckily, those are not common cases, and they also happen in sqlite
> > w/o atomic feature.
> > 
> > One more possible proposal is: if we support reflink feature like ocfs2/xfs, I
> > guess we can optimize DB like:
> > 1. reflink db to db.ref
> > 2. do transaction in db.ref
> >    - failed, rm db.ref
> >    - power-cut rm db.ref
> > 3. rename db.ref to db
> > 
> > >
> > >> One more case is that user can send a command to abort current transaction,
> > >> it should be happened before atomic_commit operation, which could easily
> > >> handle with abort_commit ioctl.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>>> e) Moreover, there should be a hole between 1) commit fail and 2) abort write &
> > >>>> recover, checkpoint will persist the corrupt data in db file, following abnormal
> > >>>> power-cut will leave that data in disk.
> > >>>
> > >>> Yes, in that case, database should recover corrupted db with its journal file.
> > >>
> > >> Journal could be corrupted as I descripted in b).
> > >
> > > Okay, so what I'm thinking is like this.
> > > It seems there are two corruption cases after journal writes.
> > >
> > > 1. power cut during atomic writes
> > >  - broken journal file and clean db file -> give up
> > >  - luckily, valid journal file and clean db file -> recover db
> > >
> > > 2. error during atomic writes
> > >  a. power-cut before abort completion
> > >   - broken journal file and broken db file -> revoking is needed!
> > >
> > >  b. after abort
> > >   - valid journal file and broken db file -> recover db (likewise plain sqlite)
> > >
> > > Indeed, in the 2.a. case, we need revoking; I guess that's what you mentioned.
> > > But, I think, even if revoking is done, we should notify an error to abort and
> > > recover db by 2.b.
> > >
> > > Something like this after successful revoking.
> > >
> > > 1. power cut during atomic writes
> > >  - broken journal file and clean db file -> give up
> > >  - luckily, valid journal file and clean db file -> recover db
> > >
> > > 2. error during atomic writes w/ revoking
> > >  a. power-cut before abort completion
> > >   - broken journal file and clean db file -> give up
> > >   - luckily, valid journal file and clean db file -> recover db
> > >
> > >  b. after abort
> > >   - valid journal file and clean db file -> recover db
> > 
> > That's right.
> > 
> > >
> > > Let me verify these scenarios first. :)
> > 
> > OK. :)
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > >>>
> > >>>> With revoking supported design, we can not solve all above issues, we will still
> > >>>> face the same issue like c), but it will be a big improve if we can apply this
> > >>>> in our interface, since it provide a way to fix the issue a) b) d). And also for
> > >>>> e) case, we try to rescue data in first time that our revoking operation would be
> > >>>> protected by f2fs_lock_op to avoid checkpoint + power-cut.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If you don't want to have a big change in this interface or recovery flow, how
> > >>>> about keep them both, and add a mount option to control inner recovery flow?
> > >>>
> > >>> Hmm, okay. I believe the current design is fine for sqlite in android.
> > >>
> > >> I believe new design will enhance in memory usage and error handling of sqlite
> > >> in android, and hope this can be applied. But, I can understand that if you
> > >> were considerring about risk control and backward compatibility, since this
> > >> change affects all atomic related ioctls.
> > >>
> > >>> For other databases, I can understand that they can use atomic_write without
> > >>> journal control, which is a sort of stand-alone atomic_write.
> > >>>
> > >>> It'd better to add a new ioctl for that, but before adding it, can we find
> > >>> any usecase for this feature? (e.g., postgresql, mysql, mariadb, couchdb?)
> > >>
> > >> You mean investigating or we can only start when there is a clear commercial
> > >> demand ?
> > >>
> > >>> Then, I expect that we can define a more appropriate and powerful ioctl.
> > >>
> > >> Agreed :)
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> Thanks,
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> How do you think? :)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thanks,
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> But, unfortunately, it seems that something is missing in the
> > >>>>> current implementation.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> So simply how about this?
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> A possible flow would be:
> > >>>>> 1. write journal data to volatile space
> > >>>>> 2. write db data to atomic space
> > >>>>> 3. in the error case, call ioc_abort_volatile_writes for both journal and db
> > >>>>>  - flush/fsync journal data to disk
> > >>>>>  - drop atomic data, and will be recovered by database with journal
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> From cb33fc8bc30981c370ec70fe68871130109793ec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > >>>>> From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
> > >>>>> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:46:33 -0800
> > >>>>> Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: fix f2fs_ioc_abort_volatile_write
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> There are two rules to handle aborting volatile or atomic writes.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 1. drop atomic writes
> > >>>>>  - we don't need to keep any stale db data.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2. write journal data
> > >>>>>  - we should keep the journal data with fsync for db recovery.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
> > >>>>> ---
> > >>>>>  fs/f2fs/file.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> > >>>>>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> > >>>>> index 91f576a..d16438a 100644
> > >>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
> > >>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> > >>>>> @@ -1433,9 +1433,16 @@ static int f2fs_ioc_abort_volatile_write(struct file *filp)
> > >>>>>  	if (ret)
> > >>>>>  		return ret;
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> -	clear_inode_flag(F2FS_I(inode), FI_ATOMIC_FILE);
> > >>>>> -	clear_inode_flag(F2FS_I(inode), FI_VOLATILE_FILE);
> > >>>>> -	commit_inmem_pages(inode, true);
> > >>>>> +	if (f2fs_is_atomic_file(inode)) {
> > >>>>> +		clear_inode_flag(F2FS_I(inode), FI_ATOMIC_FILE);
> > >>>>> +		commit_inmem_pages(inode, true);
> > >>>>> +	}
> > >>>>> +	if (f2fs_is_volatile_file(inode)) {
> > >>>>> +		clear_inode_flag(F2FS_I(inode), FI_VOLATILE_FILE);
> > >>>>> +		ret = commit_inmem_pages(inode, false);
> > >>>>> +		if (!ret)
> > >>>>> +			ret = f2fs_sync_file(filp, 0, LLONG_MAX, 0);
> > >>>>> +	}
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>  	mnt_drop_write_file(filp);
> > >>>>>  	return ret;
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> 2.6.3
> > >>>>
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > > Linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> > >
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > Linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel

Powered by blists - more mailing lists