From: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
To: "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@gmail.com>,
brauner@kernel.org, djwong@kernel.org, cem@kernel.org
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ojaswin@linux.ibm.com,
martin.petersen@oracle.com, tytso@mit.edu,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 09/12] xfs: Add xfs_file_dio_write_atomic()
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2025 15:24:23 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5e6795b1-305c-40a0-84d0-43dfb4ee6cd7@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <877c4x57j8.fsf@gmail.com>
On 10/03/2025 13:39, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote:
> John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com> writes:
>
>> Add xfs_file_dio_write_atomic() for dedicated handling of atomic writes.
>>
>> In case of -EAGAIN being returned from iomap_dio_rw(), reissue the write
>> in CoW-based atomic write mode.
>>
>> For CoW-based mode, ensure that we have no outstanding IOs which we
>> may trample on.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
>> Signed-off-by: John Garry <john.g.garry@oracle.com>
>> ---
>> fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 42 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
>> index 51b4a43d15f3..70eb6928cf63 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
>> @@ -619,6 +619,46 @@ xfs_file_dio_write_aligned(
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> +static noinline ssize_t
>> +xfs_file_dio_write_atomic(
>> + struct xfs_inode *ip,
>> + struct kiocb *iocb,
>> + struct iov_iter *from)
>> +{
>> + unsigned int iolock = XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED;
>> + unsigned int dio_flags = 0;
>> + ssize_t ret;
>> +
>> +retry:
>> + ret = xfs_ilock_iocb_for_write(iocb, &iolock);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + ret = xfs_file_write_checks(iocb, from, &iolock);
>> + if (ret)
>> + goto out_unlock;
>> +
>> + if (dio_flags & IOMAP_DIO_FORCE_WAIT)
>> + inode_dio_wait(VFS_I(ip));
>> +
>> + trace_xfs_file_direct_write(iocb, from);
>> + ret = iomap_dio_rw(iocb, from, &xfs_atomic_write_iomap_ops,
>> + &xfs_dio_write_ops, dio_flags, NULL, 0);
>> +
>> + if (ret == -EAGAIN && !(iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT) &&
>> + !(dio_flags & IOMAP_DIO_ATOMIC_SW)) {
>> + xfs_iunlock(ip, iolock);
>> + dio_flags = IOMAP_DIO_ATOMIC_SW | IOMAP_DIO_FORCE_WAIT;
>> + iolock = XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL;
>> + goto retry;
>> + }
>
> IIUC typically filesystems can now implement support for IOMAP_ATOMIC_SW
> as a fallback mechanism, by returning -EAGAIN error during
> IOMAP_ATOMIC_HW handling from their ->iomap_begin() routine. They can
> then retry the entire DIO operation of iomap_dio_rw() by passing
> IOMAP_DIO_ATOMIC_SW flag in their dio_flags argument and handle
> IOMAP_ATOMIC_SW fallback differently in their ->iomap_begin() routine.
>
> However, -EAGAIN can also be returned when there is a race with mmap
> writes for the same range. We return the same -EAGAIN error during page
> cache invalidation failure for IOCB_ATOMIC writes too. However, current
> code does not differentiate between these two types of failures. Therefore,
> we always retry by falling back to SW CoW based atomic write even for
> page cache invalidation failures.
>
> __iomap_dio_rw()
> {
> <...>
> /*
> * Try to invalidate cache pages for the range we are writing.
> * If this invalidation fails, let the caller fall back to
> * buffered I/O.
> */
> ret = kiocb_invalidate_pages(iocb, iomi.len);
> if (ret) {
> if (ret != -EAGAIN) {
> trace_iomap_dio_invalidate_fail(inode, iomi.pos,
> iomi.len);
> if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_ATOMIC) {
> /*
> * folio invalidation failed, maybe
> * this is transient, unlock and see if
> * the caller tries again.
> */
> ret = -EAGAIN;
> } else {
> /* fall back to buffered write */
> ret = -ENOTBLK;
> }
> }
> goto out_free_dio;
> }
> <...>
> }
>
> It's easy to miss such error handling conditions. If this is something
> which was already discussed earlier, then perhaps it is better if
> document this. BTW - Is this something that we already know of and has
> been kept as such intentionally?
>
On mainline, for kiocb_invalidate_pages() error for IOCB_ATOMIC, we
always return -EAGAIN to userspace.
Now if we have any kiocb_invalidate_pages() error for IOCB_ATOMIC, we
retry with SW CoW mode - and if it fails again, we return -EAGAIN to
userspace.
If we choose some other error code to trigger the SW-based COW retry (so
that we don't always retry for kiocb_invalidate_pages() error when
!IOMAP_DIO_ATOMIC_HW), then kiocb_invalidate_pages() could still return
that same error code and we still retry in SW-based COW mode - is that
better? Or do we need to choose some error code which
kiocb_invalidate_pages() would never return?
Note that -EAGAIN is used by xfs_file_dio_unwrite_unaligned(), so would
be nice to use the same error code.
Thanks,
John
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-03-10 15:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-03-03 17:11 [PATCH v4 00/12] large atomic writes for xfs with CoW John Garry
2025-03-03 17:11 ` [PATCH v4 01/12] xfs: Pass flags to xfs_reflink_allocate_cow() John Garry
2025-03-03 17:11 ` [PATCH v4 02/12] iomap: Rename IOMAP_ATOMIC -> IOMAP_ATOMIC_HW John Garry
2025-03-05 12:57 ` Carlos Maiolino
2025-03-06 8:50 ` Christian Brauner
2025-03-03 17:11 ` [PATCH v4 03/12] xfs: Switch atomic write size check in xfs_file_write_iter() John Garry
2025-03-03 17:11 ` [PATCH v4 04/12] xfs: Refactor xfs_reflink_end_cow_extent() John Garry
2025-03-03 17:11 ` [PATCH v4 05/12] iomap: Support SW-based atomic writes John Garry
2025-03-09 21:51 ` Dave Chinner
2025-03-10 10:44 ` John Garry
2025-03-10 17:21 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-03-03 17:11 ` [PATCH v4 06/12] iomap: Lift blocksize restriction on " John Garry
2025-03-03 17:11 ` [PATCH v4 07/12] xfs: Reflink CoW-based atomic write support John Garry
2025-03-03 17:11 ` [PATCH v4 08/12] xfs: Iomap SW-based " John Garry
2025-03-03 17:11 ` [PATCH v4 09/12] xfs: Add xfs_file_dio_write_atomic() John Garry
2025-03-10 13:39 ` Ritesh Harjani
2025-03-10 15:24 ` John Garry [this message]
2025-03-10 17:25 ` Darrick J. Wong
2025-03-03 17:11 ` [PATCH v4 10/12] xfs: Commit CoW-based atomic writes atomically John Garry
2025-03-03 17:11 ` [PATCH v4 11/12] xfs: Update atomic write max size John Garry
2025-03-10 10:06 ` Carlos Maiolino
2025-03-10 10:54 ` John Garry
2025-03-10 11:11 ` Carlos Maiolino
2025-03-10 11:20 ` John Garry
2025-03-10 12:38 ` Carlos Maiolino
2025-03-10 12:59 ` John Garry
2025-03-03 17:11 ` [PATCH v4 12/12] xfs: Allow block allocator to take an alignment hint John Garry
2025-03-09 22:03 ` Dave Chinner
2025-03-10 12:10 ` John Garry
2025-03-12 19:51 ` Dave Chinner
2025-03-12 21:00 ` John Garry
2025-03-06 8:47 ` (subset) [PATCH v4 00/12] large atomic writes for xfs with CoW Christian Brauner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5e6795b1-305c-40a0-84d0-43dfb4ee6cd7@oracle.com \
--to=john.g.garry@oracle.com \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=djwong@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=ojaswin@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®