[lkml]   [2014]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v5 0/10] fs: Introduce new flag(FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE) for fallocate
On Wed, 26 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 03:23:35PM -0800, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 Feb 2014, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:16:01PM +1100, Stephen Rothwell wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 24 Feb 2014 11:57:10 +1100 Dave Chinner <> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Namjae Jeon (10):
> > > > > > fs: Add new flag(FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE) for fallocate
> > > > > > xfs: Add support FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE for fallocate
> > > > >
> > > > > I've pushed these to the following branch:
> > > > >
> > > > > git:// xfs-collapse-range
> > > > >
> > > > > And so they'll be in tomorrow's linux-next tree.
> > > > >
> > > > > > ext4: Add support FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE for fallocate
> > > > >
> > > > > I've left this one alone for the ext4 guys to sort out.
> > > >
> > > > So presumably that xfs tree branch is now completely stable and so Ted
> > > > could just merge that branch into the ext4 tree as well and put the ext4
> > > > part on top of that in his tree.
> > >
> > > Well, for some definition of stable. Right now it's just a topic
> > > branch that is merged into the for-next branch, so in theory it is
> > > still just a set of pending changes in a branch in a repo that has
> > > been pushed to linux-next for testing.
> > >
> > > That said, I don't see that branch changing unless we find bugs in
> > > the code or a problem with the API needs fixing, at which point I
> > > would add more commits to it and rebase the for-next branch that you
> > > are pulling into the linux-next tree.
> > >
> > > Realistically, I'm waiting for Lukas to repost his other pending
> > > fallocate changes (the zero range changes) so I can pull the VFS and
> > > XFS bits of that into the XFS tree and I can test them together
> > > before I'll call the xfs-collapse-range stable and ready to be
> > > merged into some other tree...
> >
> > Thank you, Namjae and Dave, for driving this; and thank you, Ted and
> > Matthew, for raising appropriate mmap concerns (2013-7-31 and 2014-2-2).
> > I was aware of this work in progress, but only now found time to look.
> >
> > I've not studied the implementation, knowing too little of ext4 and
> > xfs; but it sounds like the approach you've taken, writing out dirties
> > and truncating all pagecache from the critical offset onwards, is the
> > sensible approach for now - lame, and leaves me wondering whether an
> > offline tool wouldn't be more appropriate; but a safe place to start
> > if we suppose it will be extended to handle pagecache better in future.
> Offline? You mean with the filesystem unmounted, or something else?

"Something else": which I don't expect you to leap into implementing.

> > Of course I'm interested in the possibility of extending it to tmpfs;
> > which may not be a worthwhile exercise in itself, except that it would
> > force us to face and solve any pagecache/radixtree issues, if possible,
> > thereby enhancing the support for disk-based filesystems.
> >
> > I doubt we should look into that before Jan Kara's range locking mods
> > arrive, or are rejected. As I understand it, you're going ahead with
> > this, knowing that there can be awkward races with concurrent faults -
> > more likely to cause trinity fuzzer reports, than interfere with daily
> > usage (trinity seems to be good at faulting into holes being punched).
> Yes, the caveat is that the applications that use it (TVs, DVRs, NLE
> applications, etc) typically don't use mmap for accessing the data
> stream being modified. Further, it's much less generally useful than
> holepunching, so when these two are combined, the likely exposure to
> issues resulting from mmap deficiencies are pretty damn low.

Agreed, but we do want to define how the interaction behaves, we want
it to be the same across all filesystems supporting COLLAPSE_RANGE,
and we don't want it to lead to system crashes or corruptions.

> > That's probably the right pragmatic decision; but I'm a little worried
> > that it's justfied by saying we already have such races in hole-punch.
> > Collapse is significantly more challenging than either hole-punch or
> > truncation: the shifting of pages from one offset to another is new,
> > and might present nastier bugs.
> Symptoms might be different, but it's exactly the same problem. i.e.
> mmap_sem locking inversions preventing the filesystem from
> serialising IO path operations like hole punch, truncate and other
> extent manipulation operations against concurrent page faults
> that enter the IO path.

That may (may) be true of the current kick-everything-out-of-pagecache
approach. But in general I stand by "Collapse is significantly more
challenging". Forgive me if that amounts to saying "Hey, here's a
more complicated way to do it. Ooh, this way is more complicated."
The concept of moving a page from one file offset to another is new,
and can be expected to pose new difficulties.

> > Emphasis on "might": I expect it's impossible, given your current
> > approach, but something to be on guard against is unmap_mapping_range()
> > failing to find and unmap a pte, because the page is mapped at the
> > "wrong" place in the vma, resulting in BUG_ON(page_mapped(page))
> > in __delete_from_page_cache().
> Unmapping occurs before anything is shifted. And even if a fault
> does occur before the file size changes at the end of a collapse
> range operation (via the truncate path), the page in the page cache
> won't be moved about so I don't see how the above problem could
> occur. All that will happen is that you get the wrong data in the
> mmap()d page, just like you will with hole_punch issues.

I think you're probably right. I expect that attempting to fault
a page back from disk while collapse is shifting down, will hit a
mutex and wait. But that's liable to differ from filesystem to
filesystem, so I'm not certain.

> > One thing that is slightly wrong in what you have right now, is your
> > use of truncate_pagecache_range(): you'll need to add an "even_cows"
> > arg to that (or make it a wrapper to a __truncate_pagecache_range()
> > taking additional "even_cows" arg). That arg governs what is done
> > with anonymous COW'ed pages in a MAP_PRIVATE mmap of the file.
> >
> > Truncation is required by spec to unmap them; hole punching was up
> > to us to spec, did not unmap them originally (because there was no
> > preliminary call to unmap_mapping_range(), so it happened to rely
> > on the inefficient fallback within truncate_inode_page()), and that
> > seemed fine because, why discard a user's data unnecessarily?
> I don't see there being a problem here - it's the same case as hole
> punch. And when we change the file size after shifting extents we
> are doing a truncate so that will behave as expected w.r.t.
> anonymous COW'ed pages in a MAP_PRIVATE mmap of the file.

No, it's only the same case as hole punch, up to a point.

> > But your case is different: collapse is much closer to truncation,
> > and if you do not unmap the private COW'ed pages, then pages left
> > behind beyond the EOF will break the spec that requires SIGBUS when
> > touching there, and pages within EOF will be confusingly derived
> > from file data now belonging to another offset or none (move these
> > pages within the user address space? no, I don't think anon_vmas
> > would allow that, and there may be no right place to move them).
> See above - we never leave pages beyond the new EOF because setting
> the new EOF is a truncate operation that calls
> truncate_setsize(inode, newsize).

Right, thanks, I now see the truncate_setsize() in the xfs case -
though not in the ext4 case, which looks as if it's just doing an
i_size_write() afterwards.

Yes, truncate_setsize() at the end should answer my SIGBUS objection.
And with that out of the way, although I don't particularly care for
the weirdness of private COW'ed pages becoming associated with file
offsets they never originated from, I don't think I could argue with
you when you tell me "well, that's the weirdness you get from mixing

Looks like there's no need for the __truncate_pagecache_range() with
even_cows arg that I was advocating: we just need ext4 to truncate
properly at the end, and document the disassociated private pages.

> > It's clear that the right and easy thing to do is just to unmap
> > them (all of them, from critical offset to EOF), in the rare case
> > of there being any such pages. Whether this detail needs to be
> > mentioned in the man page (I don't like throwing away a user's
> > data without warning) I'm not sure, Michael can judge.
> >
> > FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE: I'm a little sad at the name COLLAPSE,
> > but probably seven months too late to object. It surprises me that
> > you're doing all this work to deflate a part of the file, without
> > the obvious complementary work to inflate it - presumably all those
> > advertisers whose ads you're cutting out, will come back to us soon
> > to ask for inflation, so that they have somewhere to reinsert them ;)
> The name makes no difference to me - it's a filesystem offload
> function of a very specific nature. If we require the opposite
> behaviour - inserting unwritten extents after shifting the data up
> out of the way - then we can just add a new FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE
> command to do that.
> But in the absence of anyone needing such functionality, the
> complexity of implementing it is not worth the effort.

Yes, it's not a requirement that it be implemented immediately.

> > I should mention that when "we" implemented this thirty years ago,
> > we had a strong conviction that the system call should be idempotent:
> > that is, the len argument should indicate the final i_size, not the
> > amount being removed from it. Now, I don't remember the grounds for
> > that conviction: maybe it was just an idealistic preference for how
> > to design a good system call. I can certainly see that defining it
> > that way round would surprise many app programmers. Just mentioning
> > this in case anyone on these lists sees a practical advantage to
> > doing it that way instead.
> I don't see how specifying the end file size as an improvement. What
> happens if you are collapse a range in a file that is still being
> appended to by the application and so you race with a file size
> update? IOWs, with such an API the range to be collapsed is
> completely unpredictable, and IMO that's a fundamentally broken API.

That's fine if you don't see the idempotent API as an improvement,
I just wanted to put it on the table in case someone does see an
advantage to it. But I think I'm missing something in your race
example: I don't see a difference between the two APIs there.

> > I see you've included xfstests and xfs_io updates, nice. Did you
> > realize that util-linux has a /usr/bin/fallocate? I hope someone
> > will update that too.
> I don't care about /usr/bin/fallocate - I've never used it in my
> life because xfs_io exists on all my systems and is way more
> powerful and useful to me than /usr/bin/fallocate. Regardless,
> I think someone posted patches for it yesterday.

Your scorn is noted: yes, it is pretty simple,
but I'm glad to hear Dongsu is attending to it.


 \ /
  Last update: 2014-02-26 06:21    [W:0.174 / U:23.992 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site