On Wed, Jan 8, 2020 at 4:15 PM Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 08, 2020 at 11:36:04AM +0000, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:57 PM Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 04:23:15PM +0000, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 6:28 PM <fdmanana@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > We always round down, to a multiple of the filesystem's block size, the
> > > > > length to deduplicate at generic_remap_check_len(). However this is only
> > > > > needed if an attempt to deduplicate the last block into the middle of the
> > > > > destination file is requested, since that leads into a corruption if the
> > > > > length of the source file is not block size aligned. When an attempt to
> > > > > deduplicate the last block into the end of the destination file is
> > > > > requested, we should allow it because it is safe to do it - there's no
> > > > > stale data exposure and we are prepared to compare the data ranges for
> > > > > a length not aligned to the block (or page) size - in fact we even do
> > > > > the data compare before adjusting the deduplication length.
> > > > >
> > > > > After btrfs was updated to use the generic helpers from VFS (by commit
> > > > > 34a28e3d77535e ("Btrfs: use generic_remap_file_range_prep() for cloning
> > > > > and deduplication")) we started to have user reports of deduplication
> > > > > not reflinking the last block anymore, and whence users getting lower
> > > > > deduplication scores. The main use case is deduplication of entire
> > > > > files that have a size not aligned to the block size of the filesystem.
> > > > >
> > > > > We already allow cloning the last block to the end (and beyond) of the
> > > > > destination file, so allow for deduplication as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/2019-1576167349.500456@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > Darrick, Al, any feedback?
> > >
> > > Is there a fstest to check for correct operation of dedupe at or beyond
> > > source and destfile EOF? Particularly if one range is /not/ at EOF?
> >
> > Such as what generic/158 does already?
>
> Urk, heh. :)
>
> > > And that an mmap read of the EOF block will see zeroes past EOF before
> > > and after the dedupe operation?
> >
> > Can you elaborate a bit more? Why an mmap read and not a buffered or a
> > direct IO read before and after deduplication?
> > Is there anything special for the mmap reads on xfs, is that your
> > concern? Or is the idea to deduplicate while the file is mmap'ed?
>
> I cite mmap reads past EOF specifically because unlike buffered/direct
> reads where the VFS will stop reading exactly at EOF, a memory mapping
> maps in an entire memory page, and the fs is supposed to ensure that the
> bytes past EOF are zeroed.
Ok, on btrfs we zero out the rest of the page both in for all reads.
So, it's not problem:
$ file_size=$((64 * 1024 + 500))
$ xfs_io -f -c "pwrite -S 0xba 0 $file_size" foo
$ xfs_io -f -c "pwrite -S 0xba 0 $file_size" bar
$ sync
$ xfs_io -c "mmap 0 68K" -c "mread -v 0 68K" -c "dedupe bar 0 0
$file_size" -c "mread -v 0 68K" foo
Both mreads returns exactly the same, eof is still the same and all
bytes after it have a value of 0.
This is the same as it is for cloning.
>
> Hm now that I look at g/158 it doesn't actually verify mmap reads. I
> looked around and can't really see anything that checks mmap reads
> before and after a dedupe operation at EOF.
>
> > > If I fallocate a 16k file, write 'X' into the first 5000 bytes,
> > > write 'X' into the first 66,440 bytes (60k + 5000) of a second file, and
> > > then try to dedupe (first file, 0-8k) with (second file, 60k-68k),
> > > should that work?
> >
> > You haven't mentioned the size of the second file, nor if the first
> > file has a size of 16K which I assume (instead of fallocate with the
> > keep size flag).
>
> Er, sorry, yes. The first file is 16,384 bytes long; the second file is
> 66,440 bytes.
>
> > Anyway, I assume you actually meant to dedupe the range 0 - 5000 from
> > the first file into the range 60k - 60k + 5000 of the second file, and
> > that the second file has a size of 60k + 5000.
>
> Nope, I meant to say to dedupe the range (offset: 0, length: 8192) from
> the first file into the second file (offset: 61440, length: 8192). The
> source range is entirely below EOF, and the dest range ends right at
> EOF in the second file.
The dedupe operations fails with -EINVAL, both before and after this patch,
since the whenever one of ranges crosses eof, we must fail dedupe with -EINVAL.
This happens at generic_remap_checks(), which called before
generic_remap_check_len().
This is no different from the other existing tests in fstests, which
cover this case already.
>
> > If so, that fails with -EINVAL because the source range is not block
> > size aligned, and we already have generic fstests that test attempt to
> > duplication and clone non-aligned ranges that don't end at eof.
> > This patch doesn't change that behaviour, it only aims to allow
> > deduplication of the eof block of the source file into the eof of the
> > destination file.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I'm convinced that we could support dedupe to EOF when the ranges of the
> > > two files both end at the respective file's EOF, but it's the weirder
> > > corner cases that I worry about...
> >
> > Well, we used to do that in btrfs before migrating to the generic code.
> > Since I discovered the corruption due to deduplication of the eof
> > block into the middle of a file in 2018's summer, the btrfs fix
> > allowed deduplication of the eof block only if the destination end
> > offset matched the eof of the destination file:
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=de02b9f6bb65a6a1848f346f7a3617b7a9b930c0
> >
> > Since then no issues were found nor users reported any problems so far.
>
> <nod> I'm ok with that one scenario, it's the "one range ends at eof,
> the other doesn't" case that I'm picking on. :)
>
> (Another way to shut me up would be to run generic/52[12] with
> TIME_FACTOR=1000 (i.e. 1 billion fsx ops) and see what comes exploding
> out. :))
Well, it will take nearly 2 weeks to get those tests to complete with
1 billion ops, taking into
account each takes around 500 seconds to run here (on xfs) with 1
million operations...
>
> > Any other specific test you would like to see?
>
> No, just that. And mmap reads. :)
Given that we allow cloning of eof into eof already (and that doesn't
cause any known problems),
I don't see why you are so concerned with allowing dedupe to behave the same.
The only thing I can see it could be a problem would be comparing the
contents of the last page beyond the eof position,
but as stated on the changelog, it's not a problem since we call
vfs_dedupe_file_range_compare() before we
round down the length at generic_remap_check_len() - the data compare
function already has the correct behaviour.
Thanks.
>
> --D
>
> > Thanks.
> >
> > >
> > > --D
> > >
> > > > Thanks.
> > > >
> > > > > ---
> > > > > fs/read_write.c | 10 ++++------
> > > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/read_write.c b/fs/read_write.c
> > > > > index 5bbf587f5bc1..7458fccc59e1 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/read_write.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/read_write.c
> > > > > @@ -1777,10 +1777,9 @@ static int remap_verify_area(struct file *file, loff_t pos, loff_t len,
> > > > > * else. Assume that the offsets have already been checked for block
> > > > > * alignment.
> > > > > *
> > > > > - * For deduplication we always scale down to the previous block because we
> > > > > - * can't meaningfully compare post-EOF contents.
> > > > > - *
> > > > > - * For clone we only link a partial EOF block above the destination file's EOF.
> > > > > + * For clone we only link a partial EOF block above or at the destination file's
> > > > > + * EOF. For deduplication we accept a partial EOF block only if it ends at the
> > > > > + * destination file's EOF (can not link it into the middle of a file).
> > > > > *
> > > > > * Shorten the request if possible.
> > > > > */
> > > > > @@ -1796,8 +1795,7 @@ static int generic_remap_check_len(struct inode *inode_in,
> > > > > if ((*len & blkmask) == 0)
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > >
> > > > > - if ((remap_flags & REMAP_FILE_DEDUP) ||
> > > > > - pos_out + *len < i_size_read(inode_out))
> > > > > + if (pos_out + *len < i_size_read(inode_out))
> > > > > new_len &= ~blkmask;
> > > > >
> > > > > if (new_len == *len)
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.11.0
> > > > >
