[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180729025930.GA95148@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2018 19:59:30 -0700
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
To: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
Cc: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: avoid race between zero_range and background GC
On 07/29, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/7/29 10:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/27, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2018/7/27 18:29, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 07/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>> Thread A Background GC
> >>>> - f2fs_zero_range
> >>>> - truncate_pagecache_range
> >>>> - gc_data_segment
> >>>> - get_read_data_page
> >>>> - move_data_page
> >>>> - set_page_dirty
> >>>> - set_cold_data
> >>>> - f2fs_do_zero_range
> >>>> - dn->data_blkaddr = NEW_ADDR;
> >>>> - f2fs_set_data_blkaddr
> >>>>
> >>>> Actually, we don't need to set dirty & checked flag on the page, since
> >>>> all valid data in the page should be zeroed by zero_range().
> >>>
> >>> But, it doesn't matter too much, right?
> >>
> >> No, if the dirtied page is writebacked after f2fs_do_zero_range(), result of
> >> zero_range() should be wrong, as zeroed page contains valid user data.
> >
> > How about truncating page caches after block address change or doing it twice
> > before and after?
>
> Thread A Background GC
> - f2fs_zero_range
> - truncate_pagecache_range
> - gc_data_segment
> - get_read_data_page
> - move_data_page
> - set_page_dirty
> - set_cold_data
> - f2fs_do_zero_range
> - dn->data_blkaddr = NEW_ADDR;
> - f2fs_set_data_blkaddr
> bdi-flusher
> - __write_data_page
> - f2fs_update_data_blkaddr
> : data_blkaddr has been updated here.
> - truncate_pagecache_range
> : data & dnode has been writebacked before page cache truncation?
>
> How about this case?
So, truncating pages under dnode lock can address it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> Use i_gc_rwsem[WRITE] to avoid such race condition.
> >>>
> >>> Hope to avoid abusing i_gc_rwsem[] tho.
> >>
> >> Agreed, let's try avoiding until we have to use it.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> fs/f2fs/file.c | 2 ++
> >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> >>>> index 267ec3794e1e..7bd2412a8c37 100644
> >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
> >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> >>>> @@ -1309,6 +1309,7 @@ static int f2fs_zero_range(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t len,
> >>>> if (ret)
> >>>> return ret;
> >>>>
> >>>> + down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_gc_rwsem[WRITE]);
> >>>> down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_mmap_sem);
> >>>> ret = filemap_write_and_wait_range(mapping, offset, offset + len - 1);
> >>>> if (ret)
> >>>> @@ -1389,6 +1390,7 @@ static int f2fs_zero_range(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset, loff_t len,
> >>>> }
> >>>> out_sem:
> >>>> up_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_mmap_sem);
> >>>> + up_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_gc_rwsem[WRITE]);
> >>>>
> >>>> return ret;
> >>>> }
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.18.0.rc1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists