On Tue, Aug 03, 2010 at 05:11:18PM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-07-30 at 08:45 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > If we get two unaligned direct IO's to the same filesystem block
> > that is marked as a new allocation (i.e. buffer_new), then both IOs will
> > zero the portion of the block they are not writing data to. As a
> > result, when the IOs complete there will be a portion of the block
> > that contains zeros from the last IO to complete rather than the
> > data that should be there.
> > This is easily manifested by qemu using aio+dio with an unaligned
> > guest filesystem - every IO is unaligned and fileystem corruption is
> > encountered in the guest filesystem. xfstest 240 (from Eric Sandeen)
> > is also a simple reproducer.
> > To avoid this problem, track unaligned IO that triggers sub-block zeroing
> > and
> > check new incoming unaligned IO that require sub-block zeroing against that
> > list. If we get an overlap where the start and end of unaligned IOs hit the
> > same filesystem block, then we need to block the incoming IOs until the IO
> > that
> > is zeroing the block completes. The blocked IO can then continue without
> > needing to do any zeroing and hence won't overwrite valid data with zeros.
> This seems to address both two IOs are unaligned direct IO. If the first
> IO is aligned direct IO, then it is not tracked?
> I am also concerned about the aligned direct IO case...
> 1) first thread aio+dio+aligned write to a hole, there is no zero-out
> submitted from kernel. But the hole remains initialized before all IO
> complete and convert it from uninitialized extent to initialized.
> 2) second thread aio+dio+unalign write to the same hole, this time it is
> unaligned. since buffer is still new (not converted yet), the new
> incoming thread zero out port of data that first thread has written to
That is clearly and unmistakably an application bug - it should not
be issuing concurrent, overlapping IO to the same block(s)
regardless of whether they are unaligned, aligned or a mixture of
both. By using direct IO, the application has assumed responsibility
for preventing data corruption due to overlapping IOs - they are
inherently racy and nothing in the dio code prevents that from
The bug I'm fixing is for *non-overlapping* concurrent unaligned IOs
where the kernel direct IO code causes the data corruption, not the
application. The application is not doing something stupid, and as
such needs to be fixed.