On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 08:31:21PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2024 at 04:39:09PM -0400, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > Open issues:
> > - Locking?
> > - thin_seek_hole_data() does not run as a bio or request. This patch
> > assumes dm_thin_find_mapped_range() synchronously performs I/O if
> > metadata needs to be loaded from disk. Is that a valid assumption?
> > ---
> > drivers/md/dm-thin.c | 77 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 77 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-thin.c b/drivers/md/dm-thin.c
> > index 4793ad2aa1f7e..3c5dc4f0fe8a3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/md/dm-thin.c
> > +++ b/drivers/md/dm-thin.c
> > @@ -4501,6 +4501,82 @@ static void thin_io_hints(struct dm_target *ti, struct queue_limits *limits)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +static dm_block_t loff_to_block(struct pool *pool, loff_t offset)
> > +{
> > + sector_t offset_sectors = offset >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
> > + dm_block_t ret;
> > +
> > + if (block_size_is_power_of_two(pool))
> > + ret = offset_sectors >> pool->sectors_per_block_shift;
> > + else {
> > + ret = offset_sectors;
> > + (void) sector_div(ret, pool->sectors_per_block);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static loff_t block_to_loff(struct pool *pool, dm_block_t block)
> > +{
> > + return block_to_sectors(pool, block) << SECTOR_SHIFT;
> > +}
> > +
> > +static loff_t thin_seek_hole_data(struct dm_target *ti, loff_t offset,
> > + int whence)
> > +{
> > + struct thin_c *tc = ti->private;
> > + struct dm_thin_device *td = tc->td;
> > + struct pool *pool = tc->pool;
> > + dm_block_t begin;
> > + dm_block_t end;
> > + dm_block_t mapped_begin;
> > + dm_block_t mapped_end;
> > + dm_block_t pool_begin;
> > + bool maybe_shared;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + /* TODO locking? */
> > +
> > + if (block_size_is_power_of_two(pool))
> > + end = ti->len >> pool->sectors_per_block_shift;
> > + else {
> > + end = ti->len;
> > + (void) sector_div(end, pool->sectors_per_block);
> > + }
> > +
> > + offset -= ti->begin << SECTOR_SHIFT;
> > +
> > + while (true) {
> > + begin = loff_to_block(pool, offset);
> > + ret = dm_thin_find_mapped_range(td, begin, end,
> > + &mapped_begin, &mapped_end,
> > + &pool_begin, &maybe_shared);
> > + if (ret == -ENODATA) {
> > + if (whence == SEEK_DATA)
> > + return -ENXIO;
> > + break;
> > + } else if (ret < 0) {
> > + /* TODO handle EWOULDBLOCK? */
> > + return -ENXIO;
>
> This should probably be -EIO, not -ENXIO.
Yes. XFS also returns -EIO, so I guess it's okay to do so.
I still need to get to the bottom of whether calling
dm_thin_find_mapped_range() is sane here and what to do when/if it
returns EWOULDBLOCK.
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* SEEK_DATA finishes here... */
> > + if (whence == SEEK_DATA) {
> > + if (mapped_begin != begin)
> > + offset = block_to_loff(pool, mapped_begin);
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* ...while SEEK_HOLE may need to look further */
> > + if (mapped_begin != begin)
> > + break; /* offset is in a hole */
> > +
> > + offset = block_to_loff(pool, mapped_end);
> > + }
> > +
> > + return offset + (ti->begin << SECTOR_SHIFT);
>
> It's hard to follow, but I'm fairly certain that if whence ==
> SEEK_HOLE, you end up returning ti->begin + ti->len instead of -ENXIO
> if the range from begin to end is fully mapped; which is inconsistent
> with the semantics you have in 4/9 (although in 6/9 I argue that
> having all of the dm callbacks return ti->begin + ti->len instead of
> -ENXIO might make logic easier for iterating through consecutive ti,
> and then convert to -ENXIO only in the caller).
Returning (ti->begin + ti->len) << SECTOR_SHIFT for SEEK_HOLE when there
is data at the end of the target is intentional. This matches the
semantics of lseek().
I agree there is adjustment necessary in dm.c, but I want to seek the
semantics of all lseek() functions identical to avoid confusion.
Stefan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
