On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 10:20:19PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:39 PM, Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 05:37:06PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> >> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > I think something like the following patch (totally untested,
> >> > just an idea) should fix the issue, right?
> >>
> >> I think that is not enough.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> >> > index c4893e226fd8..555fcae9a18f 100644
> >> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> >> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> >> > @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ xfs_file_fsync(
> >> > struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(inode);
> >> > struct xfs_mount *mp = ip->i_mount;
> >> > int error = 0;
> >> > - int log_flushed = 0;
> >> > + unsigned int flushseq;
> >> > xfs_lsn_t lsn = 0;
> >> >
> >> > trace_xfs_file_fsync(ip);
> >> > @@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ xfs_file_fsync(
> >> > error = file_write_and_wait_range(file, start, end);
> >> > if (error)
> >> > return error;
> >> > + flushseq = READ_ONCE(mp->m_flushseq);
> >>
> >> imagine that flush was submitted and completed before
> >> file_write_and_wait_range() but m_flushseq incremented after.
> >> maybe here READ m_flush_submitted_seq...
> >>
> >> >
> >> > if (XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN(mp))
> >> > return -EIO;
> >> > @@ -181,7 +182,7 @@ xfs_file_fsync(
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > if (lsn) {
> >> > - error = _xfs_log_force_lsn(mp, lsn, XFS_LOG_SYNC, &log_flushed);
> >> > + error = _xfs_log_force_lsn(mp, lsn, XFS_LOG_SYNC, NULL);
> >> > ip->i_itemp->ili_fsync_fields = 0;
> >> > }
> >> > xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_SHARED);
> >> > @@ -193,8 +194,9 @@ xfs_file_fsync(
> >> > * an already allocated file and thus do not have any metadata to
> >> > * commit.
> >> > */
> >> > - if (!log_flushed && !XFS_IS_REALTIME_INODE(ip) &&
> >> > - mp->m_logdev_targp == mp->m_ddev_targp)
> >> > + if (!XFS_IS_REALTIME_INODE(ip) &&
> >> > + mp->m_logdev_targp == mp->m_ddev_targp &&
> >> > + flushseq == READ_ONCE(mp->m_flushseq))
> >>
> >> ... and here READ m_flush_completed_seq
> >> if (m_flush_completed_seq > m_flush_submitted_seq)
> >> it is safe to skip issue flush.
> >> Then probably READ_ONCE() is not enough and need smb_rmb?
> >>
> >
> > IIUC, basically we need to guarantee that a flush submits after
> > file_write_and_wait() and completes before we return.
>
> Yeh. unless we check if file_write_and_wait() submitted anything
> at all.
>
Ok, thanks.
> > If we do something
> > like the above, I wonder if that means we could wait for the submit ==
> > complete if we observe submit was bumped since it was initially sampled
> > above (rather than issue another flush, which would be necessary if a
> > submit hadn't occurred))..?
> >
> > If we do end up with something like this, I think it's a bit cleaner to
> > stuff the counter(s) in the xfs_buftarg structure and update them from
> > the generic buffer submit/completion code based on XBF_FLUSH. FWIW, I
> > suspect we could also update said counter(s) from
> > xfs_blkdev_issue_flush().
> >
>
> I think what you are suggesting is to optimize more cases which are
> not optimized now. That is probably possible, but also more complicated
> to get right and not sure if the workloads that gain from this are important
> enough.
>
Not necessarily. I'm just suggesting that the code could be factored
more generically/elegantly such that the logic is easier to follow. That
may facilitate optimizing more cases, but that's a secondary benefit. In
practice, the log buffer code is the only place we actually set
XBF_FLUSH, for example.
We could toss the waiting idea for now and issue the flush unless we
know one has submitted & completed since the writeback based on the
counters. Waiting on a log buffer may already do the wait for us in most
cases anyways, we just don't know if it submitted after the writeback or
not without the submit counter.
> If I am not mistaken the way to fix the current optimization is to record
> the last SYNC_DONE lsn (which is sort of what Christoph suggested)
> and the last WANY_SYNC|ACTIVE lsn.
> After file_write_and_wait() need to save pre_sync_lsn and before
> return need to make sure that post_sync_lsn >= pre_sync_lsn or
> issue a flush.
>
Perhaps, but I'm not quite following what you mean by pre/post LSNs.
Note that I believe log buffers can complete out of order, if that is
relevant here. Either way, this still seems like underhanded logic
IMO...
If the requirement is a simple "issue a flush if we can't detect that
one has submitted+completed on this device since our writeback
completed" rule, why intentionally obfuscate that with internal log
buffer state such as log buffer header LSN and log state machine values?
Just track flush submission/completions as you suggested earlier and the
fsync logic is much easier to follow. Then we don't need to work
backwards from the XFS logging infrastructure just to try and verify
whether a flush has occurred in all cases. :)
Brian
> Amir.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html