linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] xfs: Enable concurrency when writing within single block

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <1a389cab-08fe-486b-9fa2-240e6e1a3984@163.com>
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 09:34:49 +0800
From: Chi Zhiling <chizhiling@....com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
Cc: cem@...nel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
 Chi Zhiling <chizhiling@...inos.cn>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] xfs: Enable concurrency when writing within
 single block

On 2025/4/25 23:15, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2025 at 06:38:41PM +0800, Chi Zhiling wrote:
>> From: Chi Zhiling <chizhiling@...inos.cn>
>>
>> For unextending writes, we will only update the pagecache and extent.
>> In this case, if our write occurs within a single block, that is,
>> within a single folio, we don't need an exclusive lock to ensure the
>> atomicity of the write, because we already have the folio lock.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chi Zhiling <chizhiling@...inos.cn>
>> ---
>>   fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
>> index a6f214f57238..8eaa98464328 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
>> @@ -914,6 +914,27 @@ xfs_file_dax_write(
>>   	return ret;
>>   }
>>   
>> +#define offset_in_block(inode, p) ((unsigned long)(p) & (i_blocksize(inode) - 1))
> 
> Is it correct to cast an loff_t (s64) to unsigned long (u32 on i386)
> here?

I'm not sure if there is an issue here, although there is a type cast,
it shouldn't affect the final result of offset_in_block.

> 
>> +
>> +static inline bool xfs_allow_concurrent(
> 
> static inline bool
> xfs_allow_concurrent(
> 
> (separate lines style nit)

Okay

> 
>> +	struct kiocb		*iocb,
>> +	struct iov_iter		*from)
>> +{
>> +	struct inode		*inode = iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping->host;
>> +
>> +	/* Extending write? */
>> +	if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_APPEND ||
>> +	    iocb->ki_pos >= i_size_read(inode))
>> +		return false;
>> +
>> +	/* Exceeds a block range? */
>> +	if (iov_iter_count(from) > i_blocksize(inode) ||
>> +	    offset_in_block(inode, iocb->ki_pos) + iov_iter_count(from) > i_blocksize(inode))
>> +		return false;
>> +
>> +	return true;
>> +}
> 
> ...and since this helper only has one caller, maybe it should be named
> xfs_buffered_write_iolock_mode and return the lock mode directly?

Yes, this is better. I will update it in the next patch.


Thanks

> 
>> +
>>   STATIC ssize_t
>>   xfs_file_buffered_write(
>>   	struct kiocb		*iocb,
>> @@ -925,8 +946,12 @@ xfs_file_buffered_write(
>>   	bool			cleared_space = false;
>>   	unsigned int		iolock;
>>   
>> +	if (xfs_allow_concurrent(iocb, from))
>> +		iolock = XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED;
>> +	else
>> +		iolock = XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL;
>> +
>>   write_retry:
>> -	iolock = XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL;
>>   	ret = xfs_ilock_iocb_for_write(iocb, &iolock, false);
>>   	if (ret)
>>   		return ret;
>> @@ -935,6 +960,13 @@ xfs_file_buffered_write(
>>   	if (ret)
>>   		goto out;
>>   
>> +	if (iolock == XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED &&
>> +	    iocb->ki_pos + iov_iter_count(from) > i_size_read(inode)) {
>> +		xfs_iunlock(ip, iolock);
>> +		iolock = XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL;
>> +		goto write_retry;
>> +	}
>> +
>>   	trace_xfs_file_buffered_write(iocb, from);
>>   	ret = iomap_file_buffered_write(iocb, from,
>>   			&xfs_buffered_write_iomap_ops, NULL);
>> -- 
>> 2.43.0
>>
>>