On Sat, Dec 9, 2023 at 12:38 AM Bernd Schubert <bernd.schubert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 12/8/23 21:46, Amir Goldstein wrote: > > On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 9:50 PM Bernd Schubert > > <bernd.schubert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> On 12/8/23 09:39, Amir Goldstein wrote: > >>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 8:38 PM Bernd Schubert > >>> <bernd.schubert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 12/7/23 08:39, Amir Goldstein wrote: > >>>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 1:28 AM Bernd Schubert > >>>>> <bernd.schubert@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On 12/6/23 09:25, Amir Goldstein wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> Is it actually important for FUSE_DIRECT_IO_ALLOW_MMAP fs > >>>>>>>>>> (e.g. virtiofsd) to support FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES? > >>>>>>>>>> I guess not otherwise, the combination would have been tested. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how many people are aware of these different flags/features. > >>>>>>>>> I had just finalized the backport of the related patches to RHEL8 on > >>>>>>>>> Friday, as we (or our customers) need both for different jobs. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES is typically important for > >>>>>>>>>> network fs and FUSE_DIRECT_IO_ALLOW_MMAP is typically not > >>>>>>>>>> for network fs. Right? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> We kind of have these use cases for our network file systems > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES: > >>>>>>>>> - Traditional HPC, large files, parallel IO > >>>>>>>>> - Large file used on local node as container for many small files > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> FUSE_DIRECT_IO_ALLOW_MMAP: > >>>>>>>>> - compilation through gcc (not so important, just not nice when it > >>>>>>>>> does not work) > >>>>>>>>> - rather recent: python libraries using mmap _reads_. As it is read > >>>>>>>>> only no issue of consistency. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> These jobs do not intermix - no issue as in generic/095. If such > >>>>>>>>> applications really exist, I have no issue with a serialization penalty. > >>>>>>>>> Just disabling FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES because other > >>>>>>>>> nodes/applications need FUSE_DIRECT_IO_ALLOW_MMAP is not so nice. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Final goal is also to have FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES to work on plain > >>>>>>>>> O_DIRECT and not only for FUSE_DIRECT_IO - I need to update this branch > >>>>>>>>> and post the next version > >>>>>>>>> https://github.com/bsbernd/linux/commits/fuse-dio-v4 > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In the mean time I have another idea how to solve > >>>>>>>>> FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES + FUSE_DIRECT_IO_ALLOW_MMAP > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Please find attached what I had in my mind. With that generic/095 is not > >>>>>>>> crashing for me anymore. I just finished the initial coding - it still > >>>>>>>> needs a bit cleanup and maybe a few comments. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Nice. I like the FUSE_I_CACHE_WRITES state. > >>>>>>> For FUSE_PASSTHROUGH I will need to track if inode is open/mapped > >>>>>>> in caching mode, so FUSE_I_CACHE_WRITES can be cleared on release > >>>>>>> of the last open file of the inode. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I did not understand some of the complexity here: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> /* The inode ever got page writes and we do not know for sure > >>>>>>>> * in the DIO path if these are pending - shared lock not possible */ > >>>>>>>> spin_lock(&fi->lock); > >>>>>>>> if (!test_bit(FUSE_I_CACHE_WRITES, &fi->state)) { > >>>>>>>> if (!(*cnt_increased)) { > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> How can *cnt_increased be true here? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think you missed the 2nd entry into this function, when the shared > >>>>>> lock was already taken? > >>>>> > >>>>> Yeh, I did. > >>>>> > >>>>>> I have changed the code now to have all > >>>>>> complexity in this function (test, lock, retest with lock, release, > >>>>>> wakeup). I hope that will make it easier to see the intention of the > >>>>>> code. Will post the new patches in the morning. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Sounds good. Current version was a bit hard to follow. > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> fi->shared_lock_direct_io_ctr++; > >>>>>>>> *cnt_increased = true; > >>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>> excl_lock = false; > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Seems like in every outcome of this function > >>>>>>> *cnt_increased = !excl_lock > >>>>>>> so there is not need for out arg cnt_increased > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If excl_lock would be used as input - yeah, would have worked as well. > >>>>>> Or a parameter like "retest-under-lock". Code is changed now to avoid > >>>>>> going in and out. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>>> spin_unlock(&fi->lock); > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> out: > >>>>>>>> if (excl_lock && *cnt_increased) { > >>>>>>>> bool wake = false; > >>>>>>>> spin_lock(&fi->lock); > >>>>>>>> if (--fi->shared_lock_direct_io_ctr == 0) > >>>>>>>> wake = true; > >>>>>>>> spin_unlock(&fi->lock); > >>>>>>>> if (wake) > >>>>>>>> wake_up(&fi->direct_io_waitq); > >>>>>>>> } > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I don't see how this wake_up code is reachable. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> TBH, I don't fully understand the expected result. > >>>>>>> Surely, the behavior of dio mixed with mmap is undefined. Right? > >>>>>>> IIUC, your patch does not prevent dirtying page cache while dio is in > >>>>>>> flight. It only prevents writeback while dio is in flight, which is the same > >>>>>>> behavior as with exclusive inode lock. Right? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Yeah, thanks. I will add it in the patch description. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> And there was actually an issue with the patch, as cache flushing needs > >>>>>> to be initiated before doing the lock decision, fixed now. > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> I thought there was, because of the wait in fuse_send_writepage() > >>>>> but wasn't sure if I was following the flow correctly. > >>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Maybe this interaction is spelled out somewhere else, but if not > >>>>>>> better spell it out for people like me that are new to this code. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Sure, thanks a lot for your helpful comments! > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Just to be clear, this patch looks like a good improvement and > >>>>> is mostly independent of the "inode caching mode" and > >>>>> FOPEN_CACHE_MMAP idea that I suggested. > >>>>> > >>>>> The only thing that my idea changes is replacing the > >>>>> FUSE_I_CACHE_WRITES state with a FUSE_I_CACHE_IO_MODE > >>>>> state, which is set earlier than FUSE_I_CACHE_WRITES > >>>>> on caching file open or first direct_io mmap and unlike > >>>>> FUSE_I_CACHE_WRITES, it is cleared on the last file close. > >>>>> > >>>>> FUSE_I_CACHE_WRITES means that caching writes happened. > >>>>> FUSE_I_CACHE_IO_MODE means the caching writes and reads > >>>>> may happen. > >>>>> > >>>>> FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES obviously shouldn't care > >>>>> about "caching reads may happen", but IMO that is a small trade off > >>>>> to make for maintaining the same state for > >>>>> "do not allow parallel dio" and "do not allow passthrough open". > >>>> > >>>> I think the attached patches should do, it now also unsets > >>> > >>> IMO, your patch is still more complicated than it should be. > >>> There is no need for the complicated retest state machine. > >>> If you split the helpers to: > >>> > >>> bool exclusive_lock fuse_dio_wr_needs_exclusive_lock(); > >>> ... > >>> fuse_dio_lock_inode(iocb, &exclusive); > >>> ... > >>> fuse_dio_unlock_inode(iocb, &exclusive); > >>> > >>> Then you only need to test FUSE_I_CACHE_IO_MODE in > >>> fuse_dio_wr_needs_exclusive_lock() > >>> and you only need to increment shared_lock_direct_io_ctr > >>> after taking shared lock and re-testing FUSE_I_CACHE_IO_MODE. > >> > >> Hmm, I'm not sure. > >> > >> I changed fuse_file_mmap() to call this function > >> > >> /* > >> * direct-io with shared locks cannot handle page cache io - set an inode > >> * flag to disable shared locks and wait until remaining threads are done > >> */ > >> static void fuse_file_mmap_handle_dio_writers(struct inode *inode) > >> { > >> struct fuse_inode *fi = get_fuse_inode(inode); > >> > >> spin_lock(&fi->lock); > >> set_bit(FUSE_I_CACHE_IO_MODE, &fi->state); > >> while (fi->shared_lock_direct_io_ctr > 0) { > >> spin_unlock(&fi->lock); > >> wait_event_interruptible(fi->direct_io_waitq, > >> fi->shared_lock_direct_io_ctr == 0); > >> spin_lock(&fi->lock); > >> } > >> spin_unlock(&fi->lock); > >> } > >> > >> > >> Before we had indeed a race. Idea for fuse_file_mmap_handle_dio_writers() > >> and fuse_dio_lock_inode() is to either have FUSE_I_CACHE_IO_MODE set, > >> or fi->shared_lock_direct_io_ctr is greater 0, but that requires that > >> FUSE_I_CACHE_IO_MODE is checked for when fi->lock is taken. > >> > >> > >> I'm going to think about over the weekend if your suggestion > >> to increase fi->shared_lock_direct_io_ctr only after taking the shared > >> lock is possible. Right now I don't see how to do that. > >> > >> > >>> > >>>> FUSE_I_CACHE_IO_MODE. Setting the flag actually has to be done from > >>>> fuse_file_mmap (and not from fuse_send_writepage) to avoid a dead stall, > >>>> but that aligns with passthrough anyway? > >>> > >>> Yes. > >>> > >>> I see that shared_lock_direct_io_ctr is checked without lock or barriers > >>> in and the wait_event() should be interruptible. > >> > >> Thanks, fixed with the function above. > >> > >>> I am also not sure if it breaks any locking order for mmap because > >>> the task that is going to wake it up is holding the shared inode lock... > >> > >> The waitq has its own lock. We have > >> > >> fuse_file_mmap - called under some mmap lock, waitq lock > >> > >> fuse_dio_lock_inode: no lock taken before calling wakeup > >> > >> fuse_direct_write_iter: wakeup after release of all locks > >> > >> So I don't think we have a locker issue (lockdep also doesn't annotate > >> anything). > > > > I don't think that lockdep can understand this dependency. > > > >> What we definitely cannot do it to take the inode i_rwsem lock in fuse_file_mmap > >> > > > > It's complicated. I need to look at the whole thing again. > > > >>> > >>> While looking at this code, the invalidate_inode_pages2() looks suspicious. > >>> If inode is already in FUSE_I_CACHE_IO_MODE when performing > >>> another mmap, doesn't that have potential for data loss? > >>> (even before your patch I mean) > >>> > >>>> Amir, right now it only sets > >>>> FUSE_I_CACHE_IO_MODE for VM_MAYWRITE. Maybe you could add a condition > >>>> for passthrough there? > >>>> > >>> > >>> We could add a condition, but I don't think that we should. > >>> I think we should refrain from different behavior when it is not justified. > >>> I think it is not justified to allow parallel dio if any file is open in > >>> caching mode on the inode and any mmap (private or shared) > >>> exists on the inode. > >>> > >>> That means that FUSE_I_CACHE_IO_MODE should be set on > >>> any mmap, and already on open for non direct_io files. > >> > >> Ok, I can change and add that. Doing it in open is definitely needed > >> for O_DIRECT (in my other dio branch). > >> > > > > Good, the more common code the better. > > > >>> > >>> Mixing caching and direct io on the same inode is hard as it is > >>> already and there is no need to add complexity by allowing > >>> parallel dio in that case. IMO it wins us nothing. > >> > >> So the slight issue I see are people like me, who check the content > >> of a file during a long running computation. Like an HPC application > >> is doing some long term runs. Then in the middle of > >> the run the user wants to see the current content of the file and > >> reads it - if that is done through mmap (and from a node that runs > >> the application), parallel DIO is disabled with the current patch > >> until the file is closed - I see the use case to check for writes. > >> > > > > That's what I thought. > > > >> > >>> > >>> The FUSE_I_CACHE_IO_MODE could be cleared on last file > >>> close (as your patch did) but it could be cleared earlier if > >>> instead of tracking refcount of open file, we track refcount of > >>> files open in caching mode or mmaped, which is what the > >>> FOPEN_MMAP_CACHE flag I suggested is for. > >> > >> But how does open() know that a file/fd is used for mmap? > >> > > > > Because what I tried to suggest is a trick/hack: > > first mmap on direct_io file sets FOPEN_MMAP_CACHE on the file > > and bumps the cached_opens on the inode as if file was > > opened in caching mode or in FOPEN_MMAP_CACHE mode. > > When the file that was used for mmap is closed and all the rest > > of the open files have only ever been used for direct_io, then > > inode exists the caching io mode. > > > > Using an FOPEN flag for that is kind of a hack. > > We could add an internal file state bits for that as well, > > but my thinking was that FOPEN_MMAP_CACHE could really > > be set by the server to mean per-file ALLOW_MMAP instead of > > the per-filesystem ALLOW_MMAP. Not sure if that will be useful. > > Ok, I will try to add that in a different patch to have better > visibility. Will also put these patch here in front of my dio branch and > rebase these patches. There comes in a bit additional complexity to > handle O_DIRECT, but it also consolidates direct-IO writes code paths. > At least I hope this is still possible with the new changes. > > > > > Sorry for the hand waving. I was trying to send out a demo > > patch that explains it better, but got caught up with other things. > > No problem at all, I think I know what you mean and I can try add this > myself. Here is what I was thinking about: https://github.com/amir73il/linux/commits/fuse_io_mode The concept that I wanted to introduce was the fuse_inode_deny_io_cache()/fuse_inode_allow_io_cache() helpers (akin to deny_write_access()/allow_write_access()). In this patch, parallel dio in progress deny open in caching mode and mmap, and I don't know if that is acceptable. Technically, instead of deny open/mmap you can use additional techniques to wait for in progress dio and allow caching open/mmap. Anyway, I plan to use the iocachectr and fuse_inode_deny_io_cache() pattern when file is open in FOPEN_PASSTHROUGH mode, but in this case, as agreed with Miklos, a server trying to mix open in caching mode on the same inode is going to fail the open. mmap is less of a problem for inode in passthrough mode, because mmap in of direct_io file and inode in passthrough mode is passthrough mmap to backing file. Anyway, if you can use this patch or parts of it, be my guest and if you want to use a different approach that is fine by me as well - in that case I will just remove the fuse_file_shared_dio_{start,end}() part from my patch. Thanks, Amir.
