Hi, On Wed, 2013-07-24 at 12:47 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 02:58:58PM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 05:10:27PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > So, we are nesting up to 32 page locks here. That's bad. And we are > > > nesting kmap() calls for all the pages individually - is that even > > > safe to do? > > > > > > So, what happens when we've got 16 pages in, and the filesystem has > > > allocated space for those 16 blocks, and we get ENOSPC on the 17th? > > > Sure, you undo the state here, but what about the 16 blocks that the > > > filesystem has allocated to this file? There's no notification to > > > the filesystem that they need to be truncated away because the write > > > failed.... > > > > > > > + > > > > + /* IOV is ready, receive the date from socket now */ > > > > + msg.msg_name = NULL; > > > > + msg.msg_namelen = 0; > > > > + msg.msg_iov = (struct iovec *)&iov[0]; > > > > + msg.msg_iovlen = cPagesAllocated ; > > > > + msg.msg_control = NULL; > > > > + msg.msg_controllen = 0; > > > > + msg.msg_flags = MSG_KERNSPACE; > > > > + rcvtimeo = sock->sk->sk_rcvtimeo; > > > > + sock->sk->sk_rcvtimeo = 8 * HZ; > > > > > > We can hold the inode and the pages locked for 8 seconds? > > > > > > I'll stop there. This is fundamentally broken. It's an attempt to do > > > a multi-page write operation without any of the supporting > > > structures needed to handle the failure cases properly. The nested > > > page locking has "deadlock" written all over it, and the lack of > > > partial failure handling shouts "data corruption" and "stale data > > > exposure" to me. The fact it can block for up to 8 seconds waiting > > > for network shenanigans to be completed while holding lots of locks > > > is going to cause all sorts of problems under memory pressure. > > > > > > Not to mention it means that all memory allocations in the msgrcv > > > path need to be done with GFP_NOFS, because GFP_KERNEL allocations > > > are almost guaranteed to deadlock on the locked pages this path > > > already holds.... > > > > > > Need I say more? > > > > No, that's great ! :-). > > > > Thanks for the analysis. I'd heard it wasn't > > near production quality, but not being a kernel > > engineer myself I wasn't able to make that assessment. > > > > Having said that the OEMs that are using it does > > find it improves write speeds by a large amount (10% > > or more), so it's showing there is room for improvement > > here if the correct code can be created for recvfile. > > 10% is not very large gain given the complexity it adds, and I > question that the gain actually comes from moving the memcpy() into > the kernel. If this recvfile code enabled zero-copy behaviour into > the page cache, then it would be worth pursuing. But it doesn't, and > so IMO the complexity is not worth the gain right now. > > Indeed, I suspect the 10% gain will be from the multi-page write > behaviour that was hacked into the code. I wrote a multi-page > write prototype ~3 years ago that showed write(2) performance gains > of roughly 10% on low CPU power machines running XFS. > > $ git branch |grep multi > multipage-write > $ git checkout multipage-write > Checking out files: 100% (45114/45114), done. > Switched to branch 'multipage-write' > $ head -4 Makefile > VERSION = 2 > PATCHLEVEL = 6 > SUBLEVEL = 37 > EXTRAVERSION = -rc6 > $ > > I should probably pick this up again and push it forwards. FWIW, > I've attached the first multipage-write infrastructure patch from > the above branch to show how this sort of operation needs to be done > from a filesystem and page-cache perspective to avoid locking > problems have sane error handling. > > I beleive the version that Christoph implemented for a couple of > OEMs around that time de-multiplexed the ->iomap method.... > > Cheers, > > Dave. I have Christoph's version here and between other tasks, I'm working on figuring out how it all works and writing GFS2 support for it. I'd more or less got that complete for your version, but there are a number of differences with Christoph's code and it is taking me a while to ensure that I've not missed any corner cases and figuring out how to fit some of GFS2's odd write modes into the framework, Steve. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
