On 2017/12/8 18:04, Changwei Ge wrote:
> On 2017/12/8 14:21, alex chen wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2017/12/8 13:36, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 12:03 +0800, alex chen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 2017/12/8 10:26, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 08:39 +0800, alex chen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2017/12/8 2:25, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, 2017-12-06 at 09:02 +0800, alex chen wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Ben,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2017/12/5 23:49, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2017-11-22 at 11:12 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections,
>>>>>>>>>> please let me know.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ------------------
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> From: alex chen <alex.chen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> commit 28f5a8a7c033cbf3e32277f4cc9c6afd74f05300 upstream.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> we should wait dio requests to finish before inode lock in
>>>>>>>>>> ocfs2_setattr(), otherwise the following deadlock will
>>>>>>>>>> happen:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I looked at the kernel-doc for inode_dio_wait():
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /**
>>>>>>>>> * inode_dio_wait - wait for outstanding DIO requests to finish
>>>>>>>>> * @inode: inode to wait for
>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>> * Waits for all pending direct I/O requests to finish so that we can
>>>>>>>>> * proceed with a truncate or equivalent operation.
>>>>>>>>> *
>>>>>>>>> * Must be called under a lock that serializes taking new references
>>>>>>>>> * to i_dio_count, usually by inode->i_mutex.
>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now that ocfs2_setattr() calls this outside of the inode locked region,
>>>>>>>>> what prevents another task adding a new dio request immediately
>>>>>>>>> afterward?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In the kernel 4.6, firstly, we use the inode_lock() in do_truncate() to
>>>>>>>> prevent another bio to be issued from this node.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes but there seems to be a race condition - after the call to
>>>>>>> inode_dio_wait() and before the call to inode_lock(), another dio
>>>>>>> request can be added.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, I've been mixing up inode_lock() and ocfs2_inode_lock().
>>>>> However:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In the truncating file situation, the lock order is as follow:
>>>>>> do_truncate()
>>>>>> inode_lock()
>>>>>> notify_change()
>>>>>> ocfs2_setattr()
>>>>>> inode_dio_wait()
>>>>>> --here it is under the protect of inode_lock(), so another dio requests
>>>>>> from another process will not be added.
>>>>>
>>>>> only DIO reads seem to take the inode lock.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I do not clearly understand what you mean.
>>>> The inode_lock() will be called in ocfs2_file_write_iter().
>>>
>>> Oh I see. I didn't realise that was part of the call chain.
>>>
>>>> You mean only DIO writes seem to take the inode_lock()?
>>>
>>> I did mean reads, as do_blockdev_direct_IO() may call inode_lock() for
>>> reads - but ocfs2 doesn't set the flag for that. Maybe that's OK?
>>
>> I think you are right, we should set the DIO_LOCKING flag in ocfs2_direct_IO().
>
> So this is actually another problem which was NOT introduced by Alex's
> patch, right?
> Ocfs2 perhaps should depend on vfs to flush page cache to get rid of
> stale data on disk.
Yes, I think we should set the DIO_LOCKING flag to synchronize direct I/O reads/writes
and truncate.
The following patch is being tested in my local environment.
Signed-off-by: Alex Chen <alex.chen@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/ocfs2/aops.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/aops.c b/fs/ocfs2/aops.c
index 7e1659d..d10632f 100644
--- a/fs/ocfs2/aops.c
+++ b/fs/ocfs2/aops.c
@@ -2491,7 +2491,7 @@ static ssize_t ocfs2_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
return __blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, inode->i_sb->s_bdev,
iter, get_block,
- ocfs2_dio_end_io, NULL, 0);
+ ocfs2_dio_end_io, NULL, DIO_LOCKING);
}
const struct address_space_operations ocfs2_aops = {
--
1.9.5.msysgit.1
>
> Thank,
> Changwei
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Alex
>>>
>>>> BTW, in this patch, I just adjusted the inode_dio_wait() to the front of the ocfs2_rw_lock()
>>>> and didn't adjust the order of inode_lock() and inode_dio_wait().
>>>
>>> Right. I think you've convinced me to stop worrying about this.
>>>
>>> Ben.
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> .
>