xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] mm: Allow filesystems to defer cmtime updates

To: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] mm: Allow filesystems to defer cmtime updates
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2013 10:54:50 -0700
Cc: "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130904145740.GE3996@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <cover.1377193658.git.luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <e1620c8e4909a65e270c8e9590e307c22fd96a44.1377193658.git.luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20130904145740.GE3996@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 7:57 AM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu 22-08-13 17:03:19, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> Filesystems that defer cmtime updates should update cmtime when any
>> of these events happen after a write via a mapping:
>>
>>  - The mapping is written back to disk.  This happens from all kinds
>>    of places, most of which eventually call ->writepages.  (The
>>    exceptions are vmscan and migration.)
>>
>>  - munmap is called or the mapping is removed when the process exits
>>
>>  - msync(MS_ASYNC) is called.  Linux currently does nothing for
>>    msync(MS_ASYNC), but POSIX says that cmtime should be updated some
>>    time between an mmaped write and the subsequent msync call.
>>    MS_SYNC calls ->writepages, but MS_ASYNC needs special handling.
>>
>> Filesystems are responsible for checking for pending deferred cmtime
>> updates in .writepages (a helper is provided for this purpose) and
>> for doing the actual update in .update_cmtime_deferred.
>>
>> These changes have no effect by themselves; filesystems must opt in
>> by implementing .update_cmtime_deferred and removing any
>> file_update_time call in .page_mkwrite.
>>
>> This patch does not implement the MS_ASYNC case; that's in the next
>> patch.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ...
>> +/**
>> + * generic_update_cmtime_deferred - update cmtime after an mmapped write
>> + * @mapping: The mapping
>> + *
>> + * This library function implements .update_cmtime_deferred.  It is unlikely
>> + * that any filesystem will want to do anything here except update the time
>> + * (using this helper) or nothing at all (by leaving .update_cmtime_deferred
>> + * NULL).
>> + */
>> +void generic_update_cmtime_deferred(struct address_space *mapping)
>> +{
>> +     struct blk_plug plug;
>> +     blk_start_plug(&plug);
>> +     inode_update_time_writable(mapping->host);
>> +     blk_finish_plug(&plug);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(generic_update_cmtime_deferred);
>> +
>   You can remove the pluggin here. Inode update will likely result in a
> single write so there's no point.
>
>> @@ -1970,6 +1988,39 @@ int write_one_page(struct page *page, int wait)
>>  }
>>  EXPORT_SYMBOL(write_one_page);
>>
>> +void mapping_flush_cmtime(struct address_space *mapping)
>> +{
>> +     if (mapping_test_clear_cmtime(mapping) &&
>> +         mapping->a_ops->update_cmtime_deferred)
>> +             mapping->a_ops->update_cmtime_deferred(mapping);
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(mapping_flush_cmtime);
>   Hum, is there a reason for update_cmtime_deferred() operation? I can
> hardly imagine anyone will want to do anything else than what
> inode_update_time_writable() does so why bother? You mention tmpfs & co.
> don't fit into your scheme well with which I agree so let's just keep
> file_update_time() in their page_mkwrite() operation. But I don't see a
> real need for avoiding the deferred cmtime logic...

I think there might be odd corner cases.  For example, mmap a tmpfs
file, write it, and unmap it.  Then, an hour later, maybe the system
will be under memory pressure and page out the file.  This could
trigger a surprising time update.  (I'm not sure this can actually
happen on tmpfs, but maybe it would on some other filesystem.)

Does this actually matter?  A flag to turn the feature on or off would
do the trick, but I don't think there's precedent for sticking a flag
in a_ops.

>
>> +
>> +void mapping_flush_cmtime_nowb(struct address_space *mapping)
>> +{
>> +     /*
>> +      * We get called from munmap and msync.  Both calls can race
>> +      * with fs freezing.  If the fs is frozen after
>> +      * mapping_test_clear_cmtime but before the time update, then
>> +      * sync_filesystem will miss the cmtime update (because we
>> +      * just cleared it) and we don't be able to write (because the
>> +      * fs is frozen).  On the other hand, we can't just return if
>> +      * we're in the SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT state because our caller
>> +      * expects the timestamp to be synchronously updated.  So we
>> +      * get write access without blocking, at the SB_FREEZE_FS
>> +      * level.  If the fs is already fully frozen, then we already
>> +      * know we have nothing to do.
>> +      */
>> +
>> +     if (!mapping_test_cmtime(mapping))
>> +             return;  /* Optimization: nothing to do. */
>> +
>> +     if (__sb_start_write(mapping->host->i_sb, SB_FREEZE_FS, false)) {
>> +             mapping_flush_cmtime(mapping);
>> +             __sb_end_write(mapping->host->i_sb, SB_FREEZE_FS);
>> +     }
>> +}
>   This is wrong because SB_FREEZE_FS level is targetted for filesystem
> internal use. Also it is racy. mapping_flush_cmtime() ends up calling
> mark_inode_dirty() and filesystems such as ext4 or xfs will start a
> transaction to store inode in the journal. This gets freeze protection at
> SB_FREEZE_FS level again. If freeze_super() sets s_writers.frozen to
> SB_FREEZE_FS before this second protection, things will deadlock.

Whoops -- I assumed that it was safe to recursively take freeze
protection at the same level.

I'm worried about the following race:

Thread 1 (in munmap):
Check AS_CMTIME set
sb_start_pagefault

Thread 2 (freezing the fs):
frozen = SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT;
sync_filesystem()

Thread 1 is now stuck.  It doesn't need to be, because sync_filesystem
will flush out the cmtime write.  But there doesn't seem to be a clean
mechanism to wait for the freeze to finish.

Is there a clean way to avoid this?  I don't want to return
immediately if a freeze is in progress, because userspace expects that
munmap will update cmtime synchronously.

And ugly but simple solution is:

if (!mapping_test_cmtime(mapping))
    return;  /* Optimization: nothing to do. */

if (__sb_start_write(mapping->host->i_sb, SB_FREEZE_FS, false)) {
    mapping_flush_cmtime(mapping);
    __sb_end_write(mapping->host->i_sb, SB_FREEZE_FS);
} else {
    /* Freeze is or was in progress.  The part of freezing from
SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT through sync_filesystem holds s_umount for write,
so we can wait for it to finish by taking s_umount for read. */
    down_read(&sb->s_umount);
    up_read(&sb->s_umount);
}

--Andy

>
> Since the callers of this function hold mmap_sem, using SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT
> protection would be appropriate. Also since there are just two places that
> need the freeze protection I'd be inclined to open code the protection in
> the two places rather than hiding it in a special function.

Given that this is rather subtle (I've gotten it wrong multiple
times), I'd rather leave it in one place and comment it well.

--Andy

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>