09/03/2013 02:31 PM, Miklos Szeredi пишет:
On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 06:50:18PM +0400, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
Hi Miklos,
08/30/2013 02:12 PM, Miklos Szeredi пишет:
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 07:02:12PM +0400, Maxim Patlasov wrote:
08/06/2013 08:25 PM, Miklos Szeredi пишет:
Hmm. Direct IO on an mmaped file will do get_user_pages() which will
do the necessary page fault magic and ->page_mkwrite() will be called.
At least AFAICS.
Yes, I agree.
The page cannot become dirty through a memory mapping without first
switching the pte from read-only to read-write first. Page accounting
logic relies on this too. The other way the page can become dirty is
through write(2) on the fs. But we do get notified about that too.
Yes, that's correct, but I don't understand why you disregard two
other cases of marking page dirty (both related to direct AIO read
>from a file to a memory region mmap-ed to a fuse file):
1. dio_bio_submit() -->
bio_set_pages_dirty() -->
set_page_dirty_lock()
2. dio_bio_complete() -->
bio_check_pages_dirty() -->
bio_dirty_fn() -->
bio_set_pages_dirty() -->
set_page_dirty_lock()
As soon as a page became dirty through a memory mapping (exactly as
you explained), nothing would prevent it to be written-back. And
fuse will call end_page_writeback almost immediately after copying
the real page to a temporary one. Then dio_bio_submit may re-dirty
page speculatively w/o notifying fuse. And again, since then nothing
would prevent it to be written-back once more. Hence we can end up
in more then one temporary page in fuse write-back. And similar
concern for dio_bio_complete() re-dirty.
This make me think that we do need fuse_page_is_writeback() in
fuse_writepages_fill(). But it shouldn't be harmful because it will
no-op practically always due to waiting for fuse writeback in
->page_mkwrite() and in course of handling write(2).
The problem is: if we need it in ->writepages, we need it in ->writepage too.
And that's where we can't have it because it would deadlock in reclaim.
I thought we're protected from the deadlock by the following chunk
(in the very beginning of fuse_writepage):
+ if (fuse_page_is_writeback(inode, page->index)) {
+ if (wbc->sync_mode != WB_SYNC_ALL) {
+ redirty_page_for_writepage(wbc, page);
+ return 0;
+ }
+ fuse_wait_on_page_writeback(inode, page->index);
+ }
Because reclaimer will never call us with WB_SYNC_ALL. Did I miss
something?
Yeah, we could have that in ->writepage() too. And apparently that would work,
reclaim would just leave us alone.
Then there's sync(2) which does do WB_SYNC_ALL. Yet for an unprivileged fuse
mount we don't want ->writepages() to block because that's a quite clear DoS
issue.
Yes, I agree, but those cases (when sync(2) coincides with a page under
fuse writeback originated by flusher coinciding with those direct AIO
read redirty) should be very rare. I'd suggest to go on and put up with
it for now: unprivileged users won't be able to use writeback_cache
option until sysad enables allow_wbcache in fusermount.
So we are left with this:
Yes. May we implement it as a separate fix after inclusion of this
patch-set?
There's a way to work around this:
- if the request is still in queue, just update it with the contents of
the new page
- if the request already in userspace, create a new reqest, but only let
userspace have it once the previous request for the same page
completes, so the ordering is not messed up
But that's a lot of hairy code.
Is it exactly how NFS solves similar problem?
NFS will apparently just block if there's a request outstanding and we are in
WB_SYNC_ALL mode. Which is somewhat simpler.
Yes, indeed.
Thanks,
Maxim
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>