xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: invalidate the page cache when issuing BLKZEROOUT

To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>, "axboe@xxxxxxxxx" <axboe@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] block: invalidate the page cache when issuing BLKZEROOUT.
From: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 14:35:29 +0200
Cc: "linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "tytso@xxxxxxx" <tytso@xxxxxxx>, "martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx" <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx>, "snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx" <snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-api@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx" <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx" <dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:subject:to:references:cc:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=t+FjJMJvzNGMW/yhrMw8baUaiRRnegFltP8OVGo4uPk=; b=e7tWwSzqxFydLyyJJnVWo5N27x6PyapIFl686H1E8EFXHpwzV4ZDAkxfxGzTo4yL5+ +yjfSP924maCcGvZNNpGp543qe/kgneOa+J6ZAMSprYRA54S41pDnQ0gRlALlM1fHGcu UsA+BK2A7Zhs4mqpGs2mwX1A3pv6c1QUK6O3admXM8QJCTtpC3W1Z31zPxWDnzweZscn hUqxapsGhEoqNbkDxqHj/hQH6l9Z7Zq+/uScmP7K5d3i2IIbdtTaHVYYzsJXUJVimQhY WgeFXkd/r0dAe7qdkpT7ymfZc+qvNJ5Je2XfscYCiVzzeoQw34elOoLksODEogQqI3zS O9qg==
In-reply-to: <146612625412.12764.6647932282740152837.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <146612624734.12764.4316680863289411106.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <146612625412.12764.6647932282740152837.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1
On 06/17/2016 03:18 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
Invalidate the page cache (as a regular O_DIRECT write would do) to avoid
returning stale cache contents at a later time.

v5: Refactor the 4.4 refactoring of the ioctl code into separate functions.
Split the page invalidation and the new ioctl into separate patches.

Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
---
 block/ioctl.c |   29 +++++++++++++++++++++++------
 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)


diff --git a/block/ioctl.c b/block/ioctl.c
index ed2397f..d001f52 100644
--- a/block/ioctl.c
+++ b/block/ioctl.c
@@ -225,7 +225,9 @@ static int blk_ioctl_zeroout(struct block_device *bdev, 
fmode_t mode,
                unsigned long arg)
 {
        uint64_t range[2];
-       uint64_t start, len;
+       struct address_space *mapping;
+       uint64_t start, end, len;
+       int ret;

        if (!(mode & FMODE_WRITE))
                return -EBADF;
@@ -235,18 +237,33 @@ static int blk_ioctl_zeroout(struct block_device *bdev, 
fmode_t mode,

        start = range[0];
        len = range[1];
+       end = start + len - 1;

        if (start & 511)
                return -EINVAL;
        if (len & 511)
                return -EINVAL;
-       start >>= 9;
-       len >>= 9;
-
-       if (start + len > (i_size_read(bdev->bd_inode) >> 9))
+       if (end >= (uint64_t)i_size_read(bdev->bd_inode))
+               return -EINVAL;
+       if (end < start)
                return -EINVAL;

-       return blkdev_issue_zeroout(bdev, start, len, GFP_KERNEL, false);
+       /* Invalidate the page cache, including dirty pages */
+       mapping = bdev->bd_inode->i_mapping;
+       truncate_inode_pages_range(mapping, start, end);
+
+       ret = blkdev_issue_zeroout(bdev, start >> 9, len >> 9, GFP_KERNEL,
+                                   false);
+       if (ret)
+               return ret;
+
+       /*
+        * Invalidate again; if someone wandered in and dirtied a page,
+        * the caller will be given -EBUSY.
+        */
+       return invalidate_inode_pages2_range(mapping,
+                                            start >> PAGE_SHIFT,
+                                            end >> PAGE_SHIFT);
 }

Hello Darrick,

Maybe this has already been discussed, but anyway: in the POSIX spec (http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/write.html) I found the following: "This volume of POSIX.1-2008 does not specify behavior of concurrent writes to a file from multiple processes. Applications should use some form of concurrency control."

Do we really need the invalidate_inode_pages2_range() call?

Thanks,

Bart.

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