Message-ID: <YlyFEuTY7tASl8aY@codewreck.org>
Date:   Mon, 18 Apr 2022 06:22:26 +0900
From:   asmadeus@...ewreck.org
To:     Christian Schoenebeck <linux_oss@...debyte.com>
Cc:     David Kahurani <k.kahurani@...il.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
        ericvh@...il.com, kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        lucho@...kov.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Greg Kurz <groug@...d.org>
Subject: Re: 9p fs-cache tests/benchmark (was: 9p fscache Duplicate cookie
 detected)

Christian Schoenebeck wrote on Sun, Apr 17, 2022 at 03:52:43PM +0200:
> > From the looks of it, write fails in v9fs_write_begin, which itself
> > fails because it tries to read first on a file that was open with
> > O_WRONLY|O_CREAT|O_APPEND.
> > Since this is an append the read is necessary to populate the local page
> > cache when writing, and we're careful that the writeback fid is open in
> > write, but not about read...
> > 
> > Will have to think how we might want to handle this; perhaps just giving
> > the writeback fid read rights all the time as well...
> > Ran out of time for tonight, but hopefully we can sort it out soonish now!
> 
> I fear that would just trade symptoms: There are use cases for write-only 
> permissions, which would then fail after such kind of simple change.

The writeback fid is only used by async ops to flush (and apparently
since 5.10ish populate) the cache; I actually wonder how that "populate
the cache" worked before!
Anyway, since it's not used by direct operations I believe we can mess
with its open mode, but that assumes permission checks are properly done
at vfs level (this is pretty much the line of thinking that allowed
dirty cow... But in this case if a file is opened read-only the
writeback fid isn't allocated afaik, so it's probably ok ?...)

Alternatively we could have the cache issue yet another open for read
when needed, but I think a single RW fid is probably good enough if we
might read from it (no TRUNC)...
It'd break opening the writeback fid on files with -w- permission if the
open is not done as root, but I don't see how we could make appending to
a write only file at something that is not a page boundary either way.

David, netfs doesn't allow cache at byte granularity, correct?

If it does we could fix the problem by only triggering a read when
really needed.



> Independent of this EBADF issue, it would be good to know why 9p performance 
> got so slow with cache=loose by the netfs changes. Maybe David has an idea?

Yes, I've just compared the behaviour of the old cache and new one (with
cache=loose) and the main difference in behaviour I can see if the time
until flush is longer on older version, and reads are bigger with the
new version recently, but the rest is all identical as far as I can see
(4k IOs for write, walk/open/clunk sequences to read a cached file (we
could delay these until reading into cache or a metadata op is
required?), TFSYNC after a series of write or on directories after a
while...), so I don't see a difference.

In particular I don't observe any cache invalidation when the mtime (and
so qid 'version', e.g. cache anciliary data) changes, but for cache=loose
that's how I'd expect it to work as well.


Perhaps the performance difference can be explained just by how
aggressively it's flushed out of memory, since it's written to disk
faster it'd also be easier to forget about and re-issue slow reads?
hmm... I need to spend more time on that as well...

-- 
Dominique

Powered by blists - more mailing lists