On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 03:47:54PM +0200, Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote: > The relevant POSIX docs are here: > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/functions/write.html > > Write requests of {PIPE_BUF} bytes or less shall not be interleaved > with data from other processes doing writes on the same pipe. Writes > of greater than {PIPE_BUF} bytes may have data interleaved, on > arbitrary boundaries, with writes by other processes, whether or not > the O_NONBLOCK flag of the file status flags is set. Right, this is the part I've seen, but it's pretty clearly only about pipes, not regular files. > > Certainly atomic writes to _pipes_ are determined by PIPE_BUF (which > > IIRC is not even a constant on Linux, but can be changed at run-time). > > But is it relevant for regular-file writes? > > I believe it's hardcoded at PIPE_BUF which is defined as PAGE_SIZE on > linux. I think you may be thinking of /proc/sys/fs/pipe-max-pages which > is the number of pages that a pipe will take before filling up, but I > may be wrong. Yeah, you're probably right. > > So obviously this is all a bit of a tangent. I'd be fine declaring that > > trace output is generally small enough not to worry about this in the > > first place. But those results show that it shouldn't matter even if > > we're writing 1MB trace lines on Linux. I wouldn't be at all surprised > > to see different results on other operating systems, though. > > I don't know how this works internally in the kernel, but I'd be very > careful to make that assertion. Most likely this in practice depends on > what FS you're using, its mount options, whether fsync() is involved, > I/O pressure etc. Definitely it depends on the filesystem (and I'm pretty sure that at least old versions of NFS could not possibly do O_APPEND correctly, because the protocol did not support an atomic seek+write). I agree that the experiment I did doesn't really tell us anything for sure. It _seems_ to work, but the machine was not under any kind of memory or I/O pressure. I'd feel pretty confident that writes under a page are always going to be fine, but anything else is "seems to work". To me that's enough for tracing, as the absolute worst case is jumbled output, not an on-disk corruption. > FWIW this is something I've ran into in the past on Linux as a practical > matter, but that was many kernel versions ago, so maybe the semantics > changed. > > We had an ad-hoc file format with each chunk a "<start > marker><length><content><end marker>\n" format (and the <content> was > guaranteed not to contain "\n"). These would be written to the same file > by N workers. We would get corrupt data because of this in cases where > we were writing more than PIPE_BUF, e.g. start markers for unrelated > payloads interleaved with content, lines that were incorrectly formed > etc. Interesting. I wonder if it is because of PIPE_BUF, or it is simply the page size, which also happens to be the value of PIPE_BUF. > But yeah, whether this is a practical concern for git trace output is > another matter. I just wanted to chime in to note that atomic appends to > files are only portable on POSIX up to PIPE_BUF. I still think POSIX doesn't say anything either way here. The PIPE_BUF bits are _just_ about pipes. At any rate, I think we have a decent handle on what systems actually _do_, which is more important than POSIX anyway. -Peff
