On Wed, 21 May 2014, Xiaoguang Wang wrote:
> Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 14:39:43 +0800
> From: Xiaoguang Wang <wangxg.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: tytso@xxxxxxx, chrubis@xxxxxxx
> Subject: OpenPosix test case mmap_11-4 fails in ext4 filesystem
>
> Hi,
>
> Recently I met the mmap_11-4 fails when running LTP in RHEL7.0RC. Attached is a
> test program to reproduce this problem, which is written by Cyril. Uncommenting the
> msync() makes the test succeed in old linux distribution, such as RHEL6.5GA, but
> fails in RHEL7.0RC.
Hi,
please contact you Red Hat support to triage the issue within Red
Hat.
>
> I also read some ext4's source code in RHEL7.0RC and here is the possible reason
> according to my understanding. Hope this will help you something.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> When calling msync() in an ext4 file system, ext4_bio_write_page will be
> called to write back dirty pages. Here is the source code in RHEL7.0RC:
>
> int ext4_bio_write_page(struct ext4_io_submit *io, struct page *page, int len, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> {
> struct inode *inode = page->mapping->host;
> unsigned block_start, blocksize;
> struct buffer_head *bh, *head;
> int ret = 0;
> int nr_submitted = 0;
>
> blocksize = 1 << inode->i_blkbits;
>
> BUG_ON(!PageLocked(page));
> BUG_ON(PageWriteback(page));
>
> set_page_writeback(page);
> ClearPageError(page);
>
> ......
>
> bh = head = page_buffers(page);
> do {
> block_start = bh_offset(bh);
> if (block_start >= len) {
> /*
> * Comments copied from block_write_full_page_endio:
> *
> * The page straddles i_size. It must be zeroed out on
> * each and every writepage invocation because it may
> * be mmapped. "A file is mapped in multiples of the
> * page size. For a file that is not a multiple of
> * the page size, the remaining memory is zeroed when
> * mapped, and writes to that region are not written
> * out to the file."
> */
> zero_user_segment(page, block_start,
> block_start + blocksize);
> clear_buffer_dirty(bh);
> set_buffer_uptodate(bh);
> continue;
> }
> ......
> } while ((bh = bh->b_this_page) != head);
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I deleted some irrelevant code.
>
> The argument len is computed by the following code:
> loff_t size = i_size_read(inode); // file's length
> if (index == size >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT)
> len = size & ~PAGE_CACHE_MASK;
> else
> len = PAGE_CACHE_SIZE;
>
> That means len is the valid file length in every page.
>
> When ext4 file system's block size is 1024, then there will be 4 struct buffer head attached to this page.
>
> See the above "do... while ..." statements in ext4_bio_write_page(), "block_start = bh_offset(bh);" will make
> block_start be 0 for the first buffer head, 1024 for the second, 2048 for the third, 3072 for the forth.
>
> So in the reproduce program, in this case, len is 2048, the "if (block_start >= len) "
> condition will be satisfied in the third and forth iteration, so "zero_user_segment(page, block_start, block_start + blocksize);" will
> be called, then the content beyond the file's end will be zeroed, so the reproduce program will succeed.
>
> But when ext4 file system's block size if 4096, then there will only on buffer head attached to
> this page, then when len is 2048, "while ((bh = bh->b_this_page) != head);" statement will make the "do ... while..."
> statement execute only once. In the first iteration, "block_start = bh_offset(bh); " will make
> block_start be 0, " if (block_start >= len) " won't be satisfied, zero_user_segment() won't be called,
> so the content in current page beyond the file's end will not be zeroed, so the reproduce program fails.
Actually this is the same even with block size < page size. The zero
our will always be block aligned. The last block will alway be
written out.
-Lukas
>
> In RHEL6.5GA, block_write_full_page() will be called to do work similar to ext4_bio_write_page, this function does
> not do the zero work in unit of struct buffer head, so this bug is not exist.
>
> The above is my understanding. If it's not correct, I'd like that you explain the true reason, thanks.
>
> Also I don't know whether this can be considered an ext4 bug or not. And according msync()'s definition,
> it seems that it dose not require msync() to zero the partial page beyond mmaped file's area. But at least, msync()'s behavior will be
> different when ext4 file system has different block size, I think we may fix these to keep consistency.
>
> Or you think ext4's implementation is correct and the LTP mmap_11-4 case is invalid? Thanks.
>
> Regards,
> Xiaoguang Wang
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
