2016-05-02 19:58:58

by Waiman Long

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [RFC PATCH] ext4: Don't release mutex for DAX write

The ext4 DIO code releases the mutex for overwrite before
the actual write I/O. This doesn't work well for DAX as the
filemap_write_and_wait_range() function can't prevent the overwrites
from stepping on each other. This is due to the fact that DAX I/Os
are synchronous and no filemap information on which I/O operations
are pending is stored.

This patch prevents the ext4 DIO code from releasing the i_mutex when
in DAX mode. It also disable updating the i_dio_count as the i_mutex
will be hold for the entire duration of the write.

Signed-off-by: Waiman Long <[email protected]>
---
fs/ext4/inode.c | 27 ++++++++++++++++++---------
1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
index dab84a2..252731e 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
@@ -3347,6 +3347,7 @@ static ssize_t ext4_ext_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter,
get_block_t *get_block_func = NULL;
int dio_flags = 0;
loff_t final_size = offset + count;
+ bool update_dio_count, is_dax = IS_DAX(inode);

/* Use the old path for reads and writes beyond i_size. */
if (iov_iter_rw(iter) != WRITE || final_size > inode->i_size)
@@ -3355,17 +3356,25 @@ static ssize_t ext4_ext_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter,
BUG_ON(iocb->private == NULL);

/*
+ * If we do a overwrite dio, i_mutex locking can be released.
+ * For DAX, however, we shouldn't release the lock as the
+ * filemap_write_and_wait_range() function can't protect the
+ * overwrite from stepping on each other.
+ */
+ overwrite = *((int *)iocb->private);
+
+ /*
* Make all waiters for direct IO properly wait also for extent
* conversion. This also disallows race between truncate() and
* overwrite DIO as i_dio_count needs to be incremented under i_mutex.
+ * For DAX, we don't need to update the i_dio_count as we will keep
+ * the i_mutex for the duration of the I/O operation.
*/
- if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE)
+ update_dio_count = (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) && !is_dax;
+ if (update_dio_count)
inode_dio_begin(inode);

- /* If we do a overwrite dio, i_mutex locking can be released */
- overwrite = *((int *)iocb->private);
-
- if (overwrite)
+ if (overwrite && !is_dax)
inode_unlock(inode);

/*
@@ -3401,7 +3410,7 @@ static ssize_t ext4_ext_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter,
#ifdef CONFIG_EXT4_FS_ENCRYPTION
BUG_ON(ext4_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode));
#endif
- if (IS_DAX(inode))
+ if (is_dax)
ret = dax_do_io(iocb, inode, iter, offset, get_block_func,
ext4_end_io_dio, dio_flags);
else
@@ -3424,10 +3433,10 @@ static ssize_t ext4_ext_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter,
ext4_clear_inode_state(inode, EXT4_STATE_DIO_UNWRITTEN);
}

- if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE)
+ if (update_dio_count)
inode_dio_end(inode);
- /* take i_mutex locking again if we do a ovewrite dio */
- if (overwrite)
+ /* take i_mutex locking again if we do a non-DAX ovewrite dio */
+ if (overwrite && !is_dax)
inode_lock(inode);

return ret;
--
1.7.1


2016-05-03 08:43:43

by Christoph Hellwig

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: Don't release mutex for DAX write

As explained in another thread I really think we need to get DAX
to stop pretending to be direct I/O, which should also take care
of the locking. The same issue also exists for ext2 and XFS so it
needs to be solved at a higher level.

2016-05-03 15:59:03

by Waiman Long

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] ext4: Don't release mutex for DAX write

On 05/03/2016 04:43 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> As explained in another thread I really think we need to get DAX
> to stop pretending to be direct I/O, which should also take care
> of the locking. The same issue also exists for ext2 and XFS so it
> needs to be solved at a higher level.

I think the DAX code was in the DIO path because it didn't want to use
buffer cache at all. Taking DAX out from DIO will mean having a third
mode of doing I/O which is similar to DIO in certain ways, but not
exactly the same. There will be a certain amount of code duplication in
this case. Do we really want to do that?

As for the locking problem, xfs doesn't seem to have issue as it uses a
rwsem in the xfs inode for synchronization. I haven't looked into the
ext2 code to see if there is any issue there.

Cheers,
Longman