[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZOki7u/zJGmZtL6g@dread.disaster.area>
Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2023 07:53:50 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Hao Xu <hao.xu@...ux.dev>
Cc: io-uring@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Stefan Roesch <shr@...com>, Clay Harris <bugs@...ycon.org>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-cachefs@...hat.com,
ecryptfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-unionfs@...r.kernel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, codalist@...a.cs.cmu.edu,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, cluster-devel@...hat.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...ts.orangefs.org, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
samba-technical@...ts.samba.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 24/29] xfs: support nowait for xfs_buf_read_map()
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 09:54:26PM +0800, Hao Xu wrote:
> From: Hao Xu <howeyxu@...cent.com>
>
> This causes xfstests generic/232 hung in umount process, waiting for ail
> push, so I comment it for now, need some hints from xfs folks.
> Not a real patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hao Xu <howeyxu@...cent.com>
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> index cdad80e1ae25..284962a9f31a 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c
> @@ -828,6 +828,13 @@ xfs_buf_read_map(
> trace_xfs_buf_read(bp, flags, _RET_IP_);
>
> if (!(bp->b_flags & XBF_DONE)) {
> +// /*
> +// * Let's bypass the _xfs_buf_read() for now
> +// */
> +// if (flags & XBF_NOWAIT) {
> +// xfs_buf_relse(bp);
> +// return -EAGAIN;
> +// }
This is *fundamentally broken*, and apart from anything else breaks
readahead.
IF we asked for a read, we cannot instantiate the buffer and then
*not issue any IO on it* and release it. That leaves an
uninitialised buffer in memory, and there's every chance that
something then trips over it and bad things happen.
A buffer like this *must* be errored out and marked stale so that
the next access to it will then re-initialise the buffer state and
trigger any preparatory work that needs to be done for the new
operation.
This comes back to my first comments that XBF_TRYLOCK cannot simpy
be replaced with XBF_NOWAIT semantics...
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists