Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] incorrect direct io error handling | From | Dmitriy Monakhov <> | Date | Wed, 10 Jan 2007 17:36:57 +0300 |
| |
Sorry for long delay (russian holidays are very hard time :) )
David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com> writes: > On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:07:12AM +0300, Dmitriy Monakhov wrote: >> David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com> writes: >> > On Mon, Dec 18, 2006 at 04:22:44PM +0300, Dmitriy Monakhov wrote: >> >> diff --git a/mm/filemap.c b/mm/filemap.c >> >> index 8332c77..7c571dd 100644 >> >> --- a/mm/filemap.c >> >> +++ b/mm/filemap.c > > <snip stuff> > >> > You comment in the first hunk that i_mutex may not be held here, >> > but there's no comment in __generic_file_aio_write_nolock() that the >> > i_mutex must be held for !S_ISBLK devices. >> Any one may call directly call generic_file_direct_write() with i_mutex not held. > > Only block devices based on the implementation (i.e. buffered I/O is > done here). but one can't call vmtruncate without the i_mutex held, > so if a filesystem is calling generic_file_direct_write() it won't > be able to use __generic_file_aio_write_nolock() without the i_mutex > held (because it can right now if it doesn't need the buffered I/O > fallback path), then > >> > >> >> @@ -2341,6 +2353,13 @@ ssize_t generic_file_aio_write_nolock(st >> >> ssize_t ret; >> >> >> >> BUG_ON(iocb->ki_pos != pos); >> >> + /* >> >> + * generic_file_buffered_write() may be called inside >> >> + * __generic_file_aio_write_nolock() even in case of >> >> + * O_DIRECT for non S_ISBLK files. So i_mutex must be held. >> >> + */ >> >> + if (!S_ISBLK(inode->i_mode)) >> >> + BUG_ON(!mutex_is_locked(&inode->i_mutex)); >> >> >> >> ret = __generic_file_aio_write_nolock(iocb, iov, nr_segs, >> >> &iocb->ki_pos); >> > >> > I note that you comment here in generic_file_aio_write_nolock(), >> > but it's not immediately obvious that this is refering to the >> > vmtruncate() call in __generic_file_aio_write_nolock(). >> This is not about vmtruncate(). __generic_file_aio_write_nolock() may >> call generic_file_buffered_write() even in case of O_DIRECT for !S_ISBLK, and > > No, the need for i_mutex is currently dependent on doing direct I/O > and the return value from generic_file_buffered_write(). > A filesystem that doesn't fall back to buffered I/O (e.g. XFS) can currently > use generic_file_aio_write_nolock() without needing to hold i_mutex. > use generic_file_aio_write_nolock() without needing to hold i_mutex. But it doesn't use it. XFS implement it's own write method with it's own locking rules and explicitly call generic_file_direct_write() in case of O_DIRECT. BTW XFS correctly handling ENOSPC in case of O_DIRECT (fs corruption not happend after error occur).
> > Your change prevents that by introducing a vmtruncate() before the > generic_file_buffered_write() return value check, which means that a > filesystem now _must_ hold the i_mutex when calling > generic_file_aio_write_nolock() even when it doesn't do buffered I/O > through this path. Yes it's so. But it is just explicitly document the fact that every fs call generic_file_aio_write_nolock() with i_mutex held (where is no any fs that invoke it without i_mutex). As i understand Andrew Morton think so too: http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/12/12/67 <snip> I guess we can make that a rule (document it, add BUG_ON(!mutex_is_locked(..)) if it isn't a blockdev) if needs be. After really checking that this matches reality for all callers. <snip>
> >> generic_file_buffered_write() has documented locking rules (i_mutex held). >> IMHO it is important to explicitly document this . And after we realize >> that i_mutex always held, vmtruncate() may be safely called. > > I don't think changing the locking semantics of > generic_file_aio_write_nolock() to require a lock for all > filesystem-based users is a good way to fix a filesystem specific > direct I/O problem which can be easily fixed in filesystem specific > code - i.e. call vmtruncate() in ext3_file_write() on failure.... Where are more than 10 filesystems where we have to fix it then. And fix is almost the same for all fs, so we have to do many copy/paste work IMHO fix it inside generic_file_aio_write_nolock is realy straightforward way. What do you think? > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > Principal Engineer > SGI Australian Software Group
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |