Hi Allison,
I still do not understand why there is a need to write zeroes to the
end of a page rather than an end of a partially written block (in case
blocksize < pagesize)
Here is why I dont understand it:
Consider the case when:
blocksize < pagesize.
On a write to a page, we have two cases wrt to a buffer
1) partial writes to a buffer - this is taken care of by page_zero_new_buffers()
2) buffer represent a hole - so not written to at all.
Note that this buffer that completely represents a hole is not
allocated on the disk since blocksize < pagesize.
In this case, such a buffer is always unmapped and can never be
written to the disk, nor can it be read from the disk.
Also, ext4_writepage() does not call submit_bh() on an unmapped buffer.
Thus how do we get garbage from a buffer that completely represents a hole?
Regards,
Surbhi.
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Allison Henderson
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 11/20/2011 06:59 PM, Yongqiang Yang wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am curious about the reason we need this operation in write_begin
>> functions. I had a look at the commit log just now. The commit
>> log explains the intention is to handle writes on a hole and writes on
>> EOF. Two cases can be handled successfully by block_write_begin.
>>
>>
>> Yongqiang.
>
> Hi all,
>
> Sorry I missed the first note that came through. I have not been able to look at this in depth yet, but will do so when I get back from the holiday break next Thurs. Basically this patch was addressing a bug I found when I was trying to get the punch hole patch through an overnight run of fsx.
>
> With out this patch, fsx fails (after about 6 or so hours, with punch hole enabled). The failure is triggered when a region of the test file that is supposed to contain zeros, ends up containing garbage. In this case what I found was that a write operation that starts/ends in a hole or runs off the edge of the file, is supposed to zero out the part of the page that is still in the hole or beyond EOF. But instead of zeroing to the end of the page, it would only zero to the edge of the block. So it would only appear to work when blocksize = pagesize, but if blocksize < pagesize, we end up with extra garbage in the page.
>
> ext4_discard_partial_page_buffers_no_lock() and ext4_discard_partial_page_buffers(), were modeled off of the original
> ext4_block_zero_page_range routine, but modified to handle multiple blocks for a page. ext4_discard_partial_page_buffers is simply a wrapper that locks the page before passing it to ext4_discard_partial_page_buffers_no_lock. In most cases I found that the page needs to be locked, but for ext4_da_write_end and ext4_da_write_begin I ran into deadlocks, so I added the wrapper for optional locking. I will look more into it when I get back, but perhaps all we need here is some more logic to figure out if the page is present and needs locking.
>
> Allison Henderson
>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Hugh Dickins<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>> We've seen no response to this, so Cc'ing Ted and linux-kernel,
>>> and I'll fill in some more detail below.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Curt Wohlgemuth wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It appears that there's a bug with this patch:
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>> commit 02fac1297eb3f471a27368271aadd285548297b0
>>>> Author: Allison Henderson<[email protected]>
>>>> Date: Tue Sep 6 21:53:01 2011 -0400
>>>>
>>>> ext4: fix partial page writes
>>>> ...
>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Hugh Dickins found a bug with some nasty testing and lockdep that
>>>
>>> It's the tmpfs swapping test that I've been running, with variations,
>>> for years. System booted with mem=700M and 1.5G swap, two repetitious
>>> make -j20 kernel builds (of a 2.6.24 kernel: I stuck with that because
>>> the balance of built to unbuilt source grows smaller with later kernels),
>>> one directly in a tmpfs (irrelevant in this case, except for the added
>>> pressure it generates), the other in a 1k-block ext2 (that I drive with
>>> ext4's CONFIG_EXT4_USE_FOR_EXT23) on /dev/loop0 on a 450MB tmpfs file.
>>>
>>> The first oops I got was indeed down in lockdep, but I've since seen
>>> crashes from the same cause without lockdep configured in. I've not
>>> bothered to write down the stacks, beyond noting ext4_da_write_end()'s
>>> call to ext4_discard_partial_page_buffers_no_lock() in them, since the
>>> code there is clearly at fault as Curt describes.
>>>
>>>> crashed in ext4_da_write_end(), and after looking at the code with
>>>> him, it appears that the call to
>>>> ext4_discard_partial_page_buffers_no_lock() in this routine is
>>>> manipulating an unlocked, and possibly non-existent page:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>> ...
>>>> ret2 = generic_write_end(file, mapping, pos, len, copied,
>>>> page, fsdata);
>>>>
>>>> page_len = PAGE_CACHE_SIZE -
>>>> ((pos + copied - 1)& (PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - 1));
>>>>
>>>> if (page_len> 0) {
>>>> ret = ext4_discard_partial_page_buffers_no_lock(handle,
>>>> inode, page, pos + copied - 1, page_len,
>>>> EXT4_DISCARD_PARTIAL_PG_ZERO_UNMAPPED);
>>>> }
>>>> ...
>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Note that generic_write_end() will unlock and release the page before
>>>> it returns.
>>>
>>> Exactly. And clearly the loop-on-tmpfs aspect of the test is
>>> irrelevant, except in generating more pressure to trigger it.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've no good answer for how to fix this properly, but I wanted to let
>>>> Allison know about this, if she hadn't already. I looked but didn't
>>>> see any related email on the linux-ext4 list for this problem.
>>>
>>> There was a second problem I was seeing, more elusive and much harder
>>> to attribute: occasionally the build on ext2 would fail with errors
>>> from ld (almost always of the kind "In function `no symbol': multiple
>>> definition of `no symbol'" and "Warning: size of symbol `' changed":
>>> I don't know if there's anything to be deduced from that). I took
>>> these to indicate an error in filesystem or loop or tmpfs or swap.
>>>
>>> First suspect was loop changes from hch in 3.2-rc1, but backing those
>>> out made no difference. I thought I was facing a week's bisection
>>> (since it would need at least a day to conclude any stage good), but
>>> took a gamble on backing out *both* parts of 02fac1297eb3: page_len
>>> additions to ext4_da_write_begin() as well as page_len additions to
>>> ext4_da_write_end().
>>>
>>> That gamble paid off: the test then showed no problems in several
>>> days running on two machines. So, both parts of 02fac1297eb3 are
>>> bad, but it's not so easy to see what's wrong with the write_begin.
>>>
>>> My *guess* is that the partial page fixes have interfered with the
>>> subtle page-dirty buffer-dirty protocol in some way, which manifests
>>> only under memory pressure.
>>>
>>> It's conceivable that loop and tmpfs and swap play a part in this
>>> further error, but I don't think so: I have no evidence for that,
>>> and no such problem was seen before 3.2-rc1.
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> I wanted to find you an easier way to reproduce the problem, so I
>>> tried fsx (I'm still using a pretty old fsx, no fallocate or punch
>>> hole), run in ext2 on a kernel booted with mem=700M. Sorry, I did
>>> this a week ago, then didn't find time to write it up, and failed to
>>> note when my ext2 was in /dev/loop0 and when it was directly on disk.
>>>
>>> fsx foo -q -c 100 -l 100000000&
>>> while :
>>> do # memory hog mmaps and touches each page of 800MB private area
>>> swapout 800
>>> done
>>>
>>> I did not reproduce either problem above with that. Instead I found
>>> that backing out 02fac1297eb3 made fsx on 3.2-rc1 fail in a few minutes.
>>> But leaving 02fac1297eb3 in, fsx still failed in 20 minutes or an hour.
>>> On 3.1, fsx failed in a few minutes. On 3.0, fsx failed in half an hour.
>>> On 2.6.39, fsx failed in a few minutes. I had to go back to 2.6.38 for
>>> fsx to run successfully under memory pressure for more than two hours.
>>>
>>> It looks as if ext4 testing has not been running fsx under memory
>>> pressure recently. And although I didn't reproduce my main problems
>>> that way, it could well be that getting fsx to run reliably again
>>> under memory pressure will be the way to fix those problems.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Hugh
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
>>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 11/21/2011 02:26 PM, Surbhi Palande wrote:
> Hi Allison,
>
> I still do not understand why there is a need to write zeroes to the
> end of a page rather than an end of a partially written block (in case
> blocksize< pagesize)
>
> Here is why I dont understand it:
>
>
> Consider the case when:
> blocksize< pagesize.
>
> On a write to a page, we have two cases wrt to a buffer
> 1) partial writes to a buffer - this is taken care of by page_zero_new_buffers()
> 2) buffer represent a hole - so not written to at all.
> Note that this buffer that completely represents a hole is not
> allocated on the disk since blocksize< pagesize.
> In this case, such a buffer is always unmapped and can never be
> written to the disk, nor can it be read from the disk.
> Also, ext4_writepage() does not call submit_bh() on an unmapped buffer.
>
> Thus how do we get garbage from a buffer that completely represents a hole?
>
> Regards,
> Surbhi.
>
Hmm, well, it didnt seem to be a problem for pages that were completely
in the hole or truncated, just partial pages. I did notice that when
this bug occurs, a previous operations has written stuff in the page, so
I think that's where the garbage comes from. So the page is used, then
a punch hole or truncate removes the page, and then a partial write uses
the page again. And fsx will not catch this unless a read operation
happens to be done on the same region after the bug happens, but before
some other operation uses the page and covers up the evidence. That's
just my observation of this bug, but if page_zero_new_buffers is
supposed to be what takes care of this, then maybe we need to
investigate why it wasnt working for this case. Will look more into it
on Thurs.
Allison Henderson
>
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Allison Henderson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 11/20/2011 06:59 PM, Yongqiang Yang wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am curious about the reason we need this operation in write_begin
>>> functions. I had a look at the commit log just now. The commit
>>> log explains the intention is to handle writes on a hole and writes on
>>> EOF. Two cases can be handled successfully by block_write_begin.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yongqiang.
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Sorry I missed the first note that came through. I have not been able to look at this in depth yet, but will do so when I get back from the holiday break next Thurs. Basically this patch was addressing a bug I found when I was trying to get the punch hole patch through an overnight run of fsx.
>>
>> With out this patch, fsx fails (after about 6 or so hours, with punch hole enabled). The failure is triggered when a region of the test file that is supposed to contain zeros, ends up containing garbage. In this case what I found was that a write operation that starts/ends in a hole or runs off the edge of the file, is supposed to zero out the part of the page that is still in the hole or beyond EOF. But instead of zeroing to the end of the page, it would only zero to the edge of the block. So it would only appear to work when blocksize = pagesize, but if blocksize< pagesize, we end up with extra garbage in the page.
>>
>> ext4_discard_partial_page_buffers_no_lock() and ext4_discard_partial_page_buffers(), were modeled off of the original
>> ext4_block_zero_page_range routine, but modified to handle multiple blocks for a page. ext4_discard_partial_page_buffers is simply a wrapper that locks the page before passing it to ext4_discard_partial_page_buffers_no_lock. In most cases I found that the page needs to be locked, but for ext4_da_write_end and ext4_da_write_begin I ran into deadlocks, so I added the wrapper for optional locking. I will look more into it when I get back, but perhaps all we need here is some more logic to figure out if the page is present and needs locking.
>>
>> Allison Henderson
>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 4:59 AM, Hugh Dickins<[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> We've seen no response to this, so Cc'ing Ted and linux-kernel,
>>>> and I'll fill in some more detail below.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 8 Nov 2011, Curt Wohlgemuth wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It appears that there's a bug with this patch:
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>>> commit 02fac1297eb3f471a27368271aadd285548297b0
>>>>> Author: Allison Henderson<[email protected]>
>>>>> Date: Tue Sep 6 21:53:01 2011 -0400
>>>>>
>>>>> ext4: fix partial page writes
>>>>> ...
>>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Hugh Dickins found a bug with some nasty testing and lockdep that
>>>>
>>>> It's the tmpfs swapping test that I've been running, with variations,
>>>> for years. System booted with mem=700M and 1.5G swap, two repetitious
>>>> make -j20 kernel builds (of a 2.6.24 kernel: I stuck with that because
>>>> the balance of built to unbuilt source grows smaller with later kernels),
>>>> one directly in a tmpfs (irrelevant in this case, except for the added
>>>> pressure it generates), the other in a 1k-block ext2 (that I drive with
>>>> ext4's CONFIG_EXT4_USE_FOR_EXT23) on /dev/loop0 on a 450MB tmpfs file.
>>>>
>>>> The first oops I got was indeed down in lockdep, but I've since seen
>>>> crashes from the same cause without lockdep configured in. I've not
>>>> bothered to write down the stacks, beyond noting ext4_da_write_end()'s
>>>> call to ext4_discard_partial_page_buffers_no_lock() in them, since the
>>>> code there is clearly at fault as Curt describes.
>>>>
>>>>> crashed in ext4_da_write_end(), and after looking at the code with
>>>>> him, it appears that the call to
>>>>> ext4_discard_partial_page_buffers_no_lock() in this routine is
>>>>> manipulating an unlocked, and possibly non-existent page:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>>> ...
>>>>> ret2 = generic_write_end(file, mapping, pos, len, copied,
>>>>> page, fsdata);
>>>>>
>>>>> page_len = PAGE_CACHE_SIZE -
>>>>> ((pos + copied - 1)& (PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - 1));
>>>>>
>>>>> if (page_len> 0) {
>>>>> ret = ext4_discard_partial_page_buffers_no_lock(handle,
>>>>> inode, page, pos + copied - 1, page_len,
>>>>> EXT4_DISCARD_PARTIAL_PG_ZERO_UNMAPPED);
>>>>> }
>>>>> ...
>>>>> -------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that generic_write_end() will unlock and release the page before
>>>>> it returns.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly. And clearly the loop-on-tmpfs aspect of the test is
>>>> irrelevant, except in generating more pressure to trigger it.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I've no good answer for how to fix this properly, but I wanted to let
>>>>> Allison know about this, if she hadn't already. I looked but didn't
>>>>> see any related email on the linux-ext4 list for this problem.
>>>>
>>>> There was a second problem I was seeing, more elusive and much harder
>>>> to attribute: occasionally the build on ext2 would fail with errors
>>>> from ld (almost always of the kind "In function `no symbol': multiple
>>>> definition of `no symbol'" and "Warning: size of symbol `' changed":
>>>> I don't know if there's anything to be deduced from that). I took
>>>> these to indicate an error in filesystem or loop or tmpfs or swap.
>>>>
>>>> First suspect was loop changes from hch in 3.2-rc1, but backing those
>>>> out made no difference. I thought I was facing a week's bisection
>>>> (since it would need at least a day to conclude any stage good), but
>>>> took a gamble on backing out *both* parts of 02fac1297eb3: page_len
>>>> additions to ext4_da_write_begin() as well as page_len additions to
>>>> ext4_da_write_end().
>>>>
>>>> That gamble paid off: the test then showed no problems in several
>>>> days running on two machines. So, both parts of 02fac1297eb3 are
>>>> bad, but it's not so easy to see what's wrong with the write_begin.
>>>>
>>>> My *guess* is that the partial page fixes have interfered with the
>>>> subtle page-dirty buffer-dirty protocol in some way, which manifests
>>>> only under memory pressure.
>>>>
>>>> It's conceivable that loop and tmpfs and swap play a part in this
>>>> further error, but I don't think so: I have no evidence for that,
>>>> and no such problem was seen before 3.2-rc1.
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> I wanted to find you an easier way to reproduce the problem, so I
>>>> tried fsx (I'm still using a pretty old fsx, no fallocate or punch
>>>> hole), run in ext2 on a kernel booted with mem=700M. Sorry, I did
>>>> this a week ago, then didn't find time to write it up, and failed to
>>>> note when my ext2 was in /dev/loop0 and when it was directly on disk.
>>>>
>>>> fsx foo -q -c 100 -l 100000000&
>>>> while :
>>>> do # memory hog mmaps and touches each page of 800MB private area
>>>> swapout 800
>>>> done
>>>>
>>>> I did not reproduce either problem above with that. Instead I found
>>>> that backing out 02fac1297eb3 made fsx on 3.2-rc1 fail in a few minutes.
>>>> But leaving 02fac1297eb3 in, fsx still failed in 20 minutes or an hour.
>>>> On 3.1, fsx failed in a few minutes. On 3.0, fsx failed in half an hour.
>>>> On 2.6.39, fsx failed in a few minutes. I had to go back to 2.6.38 for
>>>> fsx to run successfully under memory pressure for more than two hours.
>>>>
>>>> It looks as if ext4 testing has not been running fsx under memory
>>>> pressure recently. And although I didn't reproduce my main problems
>>>> that way, it could well be that getting fsx to run reliably again
>>>> under memory pressure will be the way to fix those problems.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Hugh
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
>>>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>