On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 01:16:05PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 30-05-19 08:14:45, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 03:46:29PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Wed 29-05-19 14:46:58, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > iomap_apply() > > > > > > > > ->iomap_begin() > > > > map old data extent that we copy from > > > > > > > > allocate new data extent we copy to in data fork, > > > > immediately replacing old data extent > > > > > > > > return transaction handle as private data > > > > This holds the inode block map locked exclusively across the IO, > > so.... > > Does it? We do hold XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL during the whole dax write. I forgot about that, I keep thinking that we use shared locking for DAX like we do for direct IO. There's another reason for range locks - allowing concurrent DAX read/write IO - but that's orthogonal to the issue here. > But > xfs_file_iomap_begin() does release XFS_ILOCK_* on exit AFAICS. So I don't > see anything that would prevent page fault from mapping blocks into page > tables just after xfs_file_iomap_begin() returns. Right, holding the IOLOCK doesn't stop concurrent page faults from mapping the page we are trying to write, and that leaves a window where stale data can be exposed if we don't initialise the newly allocated range whilst in the allocation transaction holding the ILOCK. That's what the XFS_BMAPI_ZERO flag does in the DAX block allocation path. So the idea of holding the allocation transaction across the data copy means that ILOCK is then held until the data blocks are fully initialised with valid data, meaning we can greatly reduce the scope of the XFS_BMAPI_ZERO flag and possible get rid of it altogether. > > > This race was actually the strongest > > > motivation for pre-zeroing of blocks. OTOH copy_from_iter() in > > > dax_iomap_actor() needs to be able to fault pages to copy from (and these > > > pages may be from the same file you're writing to) so you cannot just block > > > faulting for the file through I_MMAP_LOCK. > > > > Right, it doesn't take the I_MMAP_LOCK, but it would block further > > in. And, really, I'm not caring all this much about this corner > > case. i.e. anyone using a "mmap()+write() zero copy" pattern on DAX > > within a file is unbeleivably naive - the data still gets copied by > > the CPU in the write() call. It's far simpler and more effcient to > > just mmap() both ranges of the file(s) and memcpy() in userspace.... > > > > FWIW, it's to avoid problems with stupid userspace stuff that nobody > > really should be doing that I want range locks for the XFS inode > > locks. If userspace overlaps the ranges and deadlocks in that case, > > they they get to keep all the broken bits because, IMO, they are > > doing something monumentally stupid. I'd probably be making it > > return EDEADLOCK back out to userspace in the case rather than > > deadlocking but, fundamentally, I think it's broken behaviour that > > we should be rejecting with an error rather than adding complexity > > trying to handle it. > > I agree with this. We must just prevent user from taking the kernel down > with maliciously created IOs... Noted. :) I'm still working to scale the range locks effectively for direct IO; I've got to work out why sometimes they give identical performance to rwsems out to 16 threads, and other times they run 20% slower or worse at 8+ threads. I'm way ahead of the original mutex protected tree implementation that I have, but still got work to do to get consistently close to rwsem performance for pure shared locking workloads like direct IO. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
