On Thu, Aug 08, 2024 at 04:32:22PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 08-08-24 09:18:51, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 07, 2024 at 08:29:45PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > this patch series implements generic handling of filesystem shutdown. The idea > > > is very simple: Have a superblock flag, which when set, will make VFS refuse > > > modifications to the filesystem. The patch series consists of several parts. > > > Patches 1-6 cleanup handling of SB_I_ flags which is currently messy (different > > > flags seem to have different locks protecting them although they are modified > > > by plain stores). Patches 7-12 gradually convert code to be able to handle > > > errors from sb_start_write() / sb_start_pagefault(). Patch 13 then shows how > > > filesystems can use this generic flag. Additionally, we could remove some > > > shutdown checks from within ext4 code and rely on checks in VFS but I didn't > > > want to complicate the series with ext4 specific things. > > > > Overall this looks good. Two things that I noticed that we should > > nail down before anything else: > > > > 1. The original definition of a 'shutdown filesystem' (i.e. from the > > XFS origins) is that a shutdown filesystem must *never* do -physical > > IO- after the shutdown is initiated. This is a protection mechanism > > for the underlying storage to prevent potential propagation of > > problems in the storage media once a serious issue has been > > detected. (e.g. suspect physical media can be made worse by > > continually trying to read it.) It also allows the block device to > > go away and we won't try to access issue new IO to it once the > > ->shutdown call has been complete. > > > > IOWs, XFS implements a "no new IO after shutdown" architecture, and > > this is also largely what ext4 implements as well. > > Thanks for sharing this. I wasn't aware that "no new IO after shutdown" is > the goal. I knew this is required for modifications but I wasn't sure how > strict this was for writes. > > > However, this isn't what this generic shutdown infrastructure > > implements. It only prevents new user modifications from being > > started - it is effectively a "instant RO" mechanism rather than an > > "instant no more IO" architecture. > > > > Hence we have an impedence mismatch between existing shutdown > > implementations that currently return -EIO on shutdown for all > > operations (both read and write) and this generic implementation > > which returns -EROFS only for write operations. > > > > Hence the proposed generic shutdown model doesn't really solve the > > inconsistent shutdown behaviour problem across filesystems - it just > > adds a new inconsistency between existing filesystem shutdown > > implementations and the generic infrastructure. > > OK, understood. I also agree it would be good to keep this no-IO semantics > when implementing the generic solution. I'm just pondering how to achieve > that in a maintainable way. For the write path what I've done looks like > the least painful way. For the read path the simplest is probably to still > return whatever is in cache and just do the check + error return somewhere > down in the call stack just before calling into filesystem. It is easy > enough to stop things like ->read_folio, ->readahead, or ->lookup. But how > about things like ->evict_inode or ->release? If the filesystem is shut down, inode eviction or releasing a FD should not be doing any IO at all - they should just be releasing in-memory resources and freeing the objects being released. e.g. we don't process unlinked inodes when the filesystem is shut down; they remain as unlinked on disk and recovery gets to clean up the mess. i.e. we process all inodes as if they were clean, linked inodes and just tear down the in-memory structures attached to the inode. i.e. shutdown isn't concerned about keeping anything consistent either in memory or on disk - it's concerned only about releasing in-memory resources such that the filesystem can be unmounted without doing any IO at all. e.g. ext4_evict_inode() needs to treat all unlinked inodes as if they are bad when the filesystem is shut down. XFS does this (see the shutdown check in xfs_inode_needs_inactive()) and every filesystem that does unlinked inode processing in inode eviction will need similar modifications. Yes, this means a "shutdown means no IO" model cannot be exclusively implemented at the VFS - it will need things like filesystems with customised inode eviction callouts to handle these cases themselves. > They can trigger IO but > allowing inode reclaim on shutdown fs is desirable I'd say. Similarly for > things like ->remount_fs or ->put_super. So avoiding IO from operations > like these would rely on fs implementation anyway. remounts need to follow the fundamental rule of shutdowns: you can't change the state of a shutdown filesystem -at all- because any operation on a shutdown filesystem should be immediately failed. The only thing you can reliably do once a filesystem is shut down is unmount it. IOWs, the VFS should return -EIO when a remount is requested on a shutdown filesystem, and the filesystem code then doesn't have to care. As for ->put_super(), this should act as if the filesystem is clean when the filesystem is shut down as everything that is dirty in memory will never get cleaned. IOWs, once shutdown has been set, dirty state should be completely ignored by everything and so object release/eviction should tear everything down regardless of it's state. Supporting a "no-IO shutdown" model properly will require filesystem specific changes to handle, but that's really implementation details more than anything else. What we need to do first is define and document exactly what shutdown means and how the VFS and filesystems need to operate when that bit is set. Then we have a clear framework from which we can consistently answer "what should filesystem X do in this situation" issues that arise... -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
