On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 01:51:12PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 23-03-16 11:39:45, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 02:22:49PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > When a fault to a hole races with write filling the hole, it can happen
> > > that block zeroing in __dax_fault() overwrites the data copied by write.
> > > Since filesystem is supposed to provide pre-zeroed blocks for fault
> > > anyway, just remove the racy zeroing from dax code. The only catch is
> > > with read-faults over unwritten block where __dax_fault() filled in the
> > > block into page tables anyway. For that case we have to fall back to
> > > using hole page now.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > fs/dax.c | 9 +--------
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c
> > > index d496466652cd..50d81172438b 100644
> > > --- a/fs/dax.c
> > > +++ b/fs/dax.c
> > > @@ -582,11 +582,6 @@ static int dax_insert_mapping(struct inode *inode, struct buffer_head *bh,
> > > error = PTR_ERR(dax.addr);
> > > goto out;
> > > }
> > > -
> > > - if (buffer_unwritten(bh) || buffer_new(bh)) {
> > > - clear_pmem(dax.addr, PAGE_SIZE);
> > > - wmb_pmem();
> > > - }
> >
> > I agree that we should be dropping these bits of code, but I think they are
> > just dead code that could never be executed? I don't see how we could have
> > hit a race?
> >
> > For the above, dax_insert_mapping() is only called if we actually have a block
> > mapping (holes go through dax_load_hole()), so for ext4 and XFS I think
> > buffer_unwritten() and buffer_new() are always false, so this code could never
> > be executed, right?
> >
> > I suppose that maybe we could get into here via ext2 if BH_New was set? Is
> > that the race?
>
> Yeah, you are right that only ext2 is prone to the race I have described
> since for the rest this should be just a dead code. I'll update the changelog
> in this sense.
What do you think about updating ext2 so that like ext4 and xfs it doesn't
ever return BH_New? AFAICT ext2 doesn't rely on DAX to clear the sectors it
returns - it does that in ext2_get_blocks() via dax_clear_sectors(), right?
Or, really, I guess we could just leave ext2 alone and let it return BH_New,
and just make sure that DAX doesn't do anything with it.
> > > if (vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) {
> > > error = get_block(inode, block, &bh, 1);
> > > count_vm_event(PGMAJFAULT);
> > > @@ -950,8 +945,6 @@ int __dax_pmd_fault(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
> > > }
> > >
> > > if (buffer_unwritten(&bh) || buffer_new(&bh)) {
> > > - clear_pmem(dax.addr, PMD_SIZE);
> > > - wmb_pmem();
> > > count_vm_event(PGMAJFAULT);
> > > mem_cgroup_count_vm_event(vma->vm_mm, PGMAJFAULT);
> > > result |= VM_FAULT_MAJOR;
> >
> > I think this whole block is just dead code, right? Can we ever get into here?
> >
> > Same argument applies as from dax_insert_mapping() - if we get this far then
> > we have a mapped buffer, and in the PMD case we know we're on ext4 of XFS
> > since ext2 doesn't do huge page mappings.
> >
> > So, buffer_unwritten() and buffer_new() both always return false, right?
> >
> > Yea...we really need to clean up our buffer flag handling. :)
>
> Hum, looking at the code now I'm somewhat confused. __dax_pmd_fault does:
>
> if (!write && !buffer_mapped(&bh) && buffer_uptodate(&bh)) {
> ... install zero page ...
> }
>
> but what the buffer_update() check is about? That will never be true,
> right? So we will fall back to the second branch and there we can actually
> hit the
>
> if (buffer_unwritten(&bh) || buffer_new(&bh)) {
>
> because for read fault we can get unwritten buffer. But I guess that is a
> mistake in the first branch. After fixing that we can just remove the
> second if as you say. Unless you object, I'll update the patch in this
> sense.
I can't remember if I've ever seen this code get executed - I *think* that
when we hit a hole we always drop back and do 4k zero pages via this code:
/*
* If the filesystem isn't willing to tell us the length of a hole,
* just fall back to PTEs. Calling get_block 512 times in a loop
* would be silly.
*/
if (!buffer_size_valid(&bh) || bh.b_size < PMD_SIZE) {
dax_pmd_dbg(&bh, address, "allocated block too small");
return VM_FAULT_FALLBACK;
}
I agree that this could probably use some cleanup and additional testing.
--
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
