linux-kernel - Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <63ADC13FD55D6546B7DECE290D39E373F290E6C5@H3CMLB12-EX.srv.huawei-3com.com>
Date:   Wed, 10 Jan 2018 06:33:43 +0000
From:   Changwei Ge <ge.changwei@....com>
To:     Gang He <ghe@...e.com>,
        "mfasheh@...sity.com" <mfasheh@...sity.com>,
        "jlbec@...lplan.org" <jlbec@...lplan.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com" <ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid
 duplicated trims in cluster

Hi Gang,

On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote:
> As you know, ocfs2 has support trim the underlying disk via
> fstrim command. But there is a problem, ocfs2 is a shared disk
> cluster file system, if the user configures a scheduled fstrim
> job on each file system node, this will trigger multiple nodes
> trim a shared disk simultaneously, it is very wasteful for CPU
> and IO consumption, also might negatively affect the lifetime
> of poor-quality SSD devices.
> Then, we introduce a trimfs dlm lock to communicate with each
> other in this case, which will make only one fstrim command to
> do the trimming on a shared disk among the cluster, the fstrim
> commands from the other nodes should wait for the first fstrim
> to finish and returned success directly, to avoid running a the
> same trim on the shared disk again.
> 
> Compare with first version, I change the fstrim commands' returned
> value and behavior in case which meets a fstrim command is running
> on a shared disk.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Gang He <ghe@...e.com>
> ---
>   fs/ocfs2/alloc.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 44 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c b/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c
> index ab5105f..5c9c3e2 100644
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c
> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c
> @@ -7382,6 +7382,7 @@ int ocfs2_trim_fs(struct super_block *sb, struct fstrim_range *range)
>   	struct buffer_head *gd_bh = NULL;
>   	struct ocfs2_dinode *main_bm;
>   	struct ocfs2_group_desc *gd = NULL;
> +	struct ocfs2_trim_fs_info info, *pinfo = NULL;

I think *pinfo* is not necessary.
>   
>   	start = range->start >> osb->s_clustersize_bits;
>   	len = range->len >> osb->s_clustersize_bits;
> @@ -7419,6 +7420,42 @@ int ocfs2_trim_fs(struct super_block *sb, struct fstrim_range *range)
>   
>   	trace_ocfs2_trim_fs(start, len, minlen);
>   
> +	ocfs2_trim_fs_lock_res_init(osb);
> +	ret = ocfs2_trim_fs_lock(osb, NULL, 1);

I don't get why try to lock here and if fails, acquire the same lock again later but wait until granted.
Can it just acquire the _trimfs_ lock as a blocking one directly here?

> +	if (ret < 0) {
> +		if (ret != -EAGAIN) {
> +			mlog_errno(ret);
> +			ocfs2_trim_fs_lock_res_uninit(osb);
> +			goto out_unlock;
> +		}
> +
> +		mlog(ML_NOTICE, "Wait for trim on device (%s) to "
> +		     "finish, which is running from another node.\n",
> +		     osb->dev_str);
> +		ret = ocfs2_trim_fs_lock(osb, &info, 0);
> +		if (ret < 0) {
> +			mlog_errno(ret);
> +			ocfs2_trim_fs_lock_res_uninit(osb);

In ocfs2_trim_fs_lock_res_uninit(), you drop lock. But it is never granted.
Still need to drop lock resource?

> +			goto out_unlock;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (info.tf_valid && info.tf_success &&
> +		    info.tf_start == start && info.tf_len == len &&
> +		    info.tf_minlen == minlen) {
> +			/* Avoid sending duplicated trim to a shared device */
> +			mlog(ML_NOTICE, "The same trim on device (%s) was "
> +			     "just done from node (%u), return.\n",
> +			     osb->dev_str, info.tf_nodenum);
> +			range->len = info.tf_trimlen;
> +			goto out_trimunlock;
> +		}
> +	}
> +
> +	info.tf_nodenum = osb->node_num;
> +	info.tf_start = start;
> +	info.tf_len = len;
> +	info.tf_minlen = minlen;

If we faild during dong trimfs, I think we should not cache above info in LVB.
BTW, it seems that this patch is on top of  'try lock' patches which you previously sent out.
Are they related?

Thanks,
Changwei

> +
>   	/* Determine first and last group to examine based on start and len */
>   	first_group = ocfs2_which_cluster_group(main_bm_inode, start);
>   	if (first_group == osb->first_cluster_group_blkno)
> @@ -7463,6 +7500,13 @@ int ocfs2_trim_fs(struct super_block *sb, struct fstrim_range *range)
>   			group += ocfs2_clusters_to_blocks(sb, osb->bitmap_cpg);
>   	}
>   	range->len = trimmed * sb->s_blocksize;
> +
> +	info.tf_trimlen = range->len;
> +	info.tf_success = (ret ? 0 : 1);
> +	pinfo = &info;
> +out_trimunlock:
> +	ocfs2_trim_fs_unlock(osb, pinfo);
> +	ocfs2_trim_fs_lock_res_uninit(osb);
>   out_unlock:
>   	ocfs2_inode_unlock(main_bm_inode, 0);
>   	brelse(main_bm_bh);
>