Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:33:22 +0000
> Niels de Vos <ndevos@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Executing an fsync() on a file-descriptor of a partition flushes the
>> caches for that partition by calling blkdev_fsync(). However, it seems
>> that reading data through the parent device will still return the old
>> cached data.
>>
>> The problem can be worked around by forcing the caches to be flushed
>> with either
>> # blockdev --flushbufs ${dev_disk}
>> or
>> # echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
>>
>> One of the use-cases that shows this problem:
>> 1) create two or more partitions on a device
>> - use fdisk to create /dev/sdb1 and /dev/sdb2
>> 2) format and mount one of the partition
>> - mkfs -t ext3 /dev/sdb1
>> 3) read through the main device to have something in the cache
>> - read /dev/sdb with dd or use something like "parted /dev/sdb print"
>> 4) now write something to /dev/sdb2, format the partition for example
>> - mkfs -t ext3 /dev/sdb2
>> 5) read the blocks where sdb2 starts, through /dev/sdb
>> - use dd or do again a "parted /dev/sdb print"
>>
>> The cache for the block-device is not synced if the block-device is kept
>> open (due to a mounted partition, for example). Only when all users for
>> the disk have exited, the cache for the disk is made consistent again.
>>
>> Without this patch, calling "blockdev --flushbufs" or dropping the
>> caches, the result in 5) is the same as in 3). Reading the same area
>> through /dev/sdb2 shows the inconsistancy between the two caches.
>>
>> ...
>>
>> --- a/fs/block_dev.c
>> +++ b/fs/block_dev.c
>> @@ -424,6 +424,10 @@ int blkdev_fsync(struct file *filp, loff_t start, loff_t end, int datasync)
>> if (error == -EOPNOTSUPP)
>> error = 0;
>>
>> + /* invalidate parent block_device */
>> + if (!error && bdev != bdev->bd_contains)
>> + invalidate_bdev(bdev->bd_contains);
>> +
>> return error;
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(blkdev_fsync);
>
> I can't say I'm a huge fan of this. It just isn't logical to drop
> /dev/sda's pagecache in here.
>
> We're adapting the kernel to the behavior of existing userspace by
> inserting a useful side-effect into a suprising place. The result is
> pretty darned hacky.
>
> The Right Thing To Do here is to make the kernel behave logically and
> predictably, then modify the userspace tools.
To me, logically the caches should not be separate. /dev/sda and
/dev/sda1 are the same underlying device, after all, and there shouldn't
be any cache aliases. Unfortunately, that sounds like a rather large
change to me, with a completely new set of side effects to deal with.
> But if we're modifying the userspace tools then we would just change
> userspace to issue a BLKFLSBUF to /dev/sda and leave the kernel alone.
>
> So hm. I think I might prefer to leave the issue unfixed rather than
> doing this to the poor old kernel :(
I could certainly understand taking this stance.
Cheers,
Jeff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
