lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] fs: New zonefs file system
On Mon, Dec 23, 2019 at 01:33:30AM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> On 2019/12/21 7:38, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 03:55:27PM +0900, Damien Le Moal wrote:
> [...]>> +static int zonefs_inode_setattr(struct dentry *dentry, struct
> iattr *iattr)
> >> +{
> >> + struct inode *inode = d_inode(dentry);
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> >> + ret = setattr_prepare(dentry, iattr);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + return ret;
> >> +
> >> + if ((iattr->ia_valid & ATTR_UID &&
> >> + !uid_eq(iattr->ia_uid, inode->i_uid)) ||
> >> + (iattr->ia_valid & ATTR_GID &&
> >> + !gid_eq(iattr->ia_gid, inode->i_gid))) {
> >> + ret = dquot_transfer(inode, iattr);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + return ret;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (iattr->ia_valid & ATTR_SIZE) {
> >> + /* The size of conventional zone files cannot be changed */
> >> + if (ZONEFS_I(inode)->i_ztype == ZONEFS_ZTYPE_CNV)
> >> + return -EPERM;
> >> +
> >> + ret = zonefs_seq_file_truncate(inode, iattr->ia_size);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + return ret;
> >> + }
> >
> > /me wonders if you need to filter out ATTR_MODE changes here, at least
> > so you can't make the zone file for a readonly zone writable?
>
> Good point. Will add that to V3.
>
> > I also wonder, does an O_TRUNC open reset the zone's write pointer to
> > zero?
>
> Yes, it does. That does not change from a regular FS behavior. This is
> also consistent with the fact that a truncate(0) does exactly the same
> thing.

Ok, good, just checking. :)

> [...]
> >> +static const struct vm_operations_struct zonefs_file_vm_ops = {
> >> + .fault = zonefs_filemap_fault,
> >> + .map_pages = filemap_map_pages,
> >> + .page_mkwrite = zonefs_filemap_page_mkwrite,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static int zonefs_file_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> >> +{
> >> + /*
> >> + * Conventional zone files can be mmap-ed READ/WRITE.
> >> + * For sequential zone files, only readonly mappings are possible.
> >
> > Hmm, but the code below looks like it allows private writable mmapings
> > of sequential zones?
>
> It is my understanding that changes made to pages of a MAP_PRIVATE
> mapping are not written back to the underlying file, so a
> mmap(MAP_WRITE|MAP_PRIVATE) is essentially equivalent to a read only
> mapping for the FS. Am I missing something ?
>
> Not sure if it make any sense at all to allow private writeable mappings
> though, but if my assumption is correct, I do not see any reason to
> prevent them either.

<nod> You're correct, I was just checking that this is indeed the
correct behavior for zonefs. :)

> [...]
> >> +static const struct iomap_dio_ops zonefs_dio_ops = {
> >> + .end_io = zonefs_file_dio_write_end,
> >> +};
> >> +
> >> +static ssize_t zonefs_file_dio_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
> >> +{
> >> + struct inode *inode = file_inode(iocb->ki_filp);
> >> + struct zonefs_sb_info *sbi = ZONEFS_SB(inode->i_sb);
> >> + struct zonefs_inode_info *zi = ZONEFS_I(inode);
> >> + size_t count;
> >> + ssize_t ret;
> >> +
> >> + if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT) {
> >> + if (!inode_trylock(inode))
> >> + return -EAGAIN;
> >> + } else {
> >> + inode_lock(inode);
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + ret = generic_write_checks(iocb, from);
> >> + if (ret <= 0)
> >> + goto out;
> >> +
> >> + iov_iter_truncate(from, zi->i_max_size - iocb->ki_pos);
> >> + count = iov_iter_count(from);
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * Direct writes must be aligned to the block size, that is, the device
> >> + * physical sector size, to avoid errors when writing sequential zones
> >> + * on 512e devices (512B logical sector, 4KB physical sectors).
> >> + */
> >> + if ((iocb->ki_pos | count) & sbi->s_blocksize_mask) {
> >> + ret = -EINVAL;
> >> + goto out;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * Enforce sequential writes (append only) in sequential zones.
> >> + */
> >
> > I wonder, shouldn't zonefs require users to open sequential zones with
> > O_APPEND? I don't see anything in here that would suggest that it does,
> > though maybe I missed something.
>
> Yes, I thought about this too but decided against it for several reasons:
> 1) Requiring O_APPEND breaks some shell command like tools such as
> "truncate" which makes scripting (including tests) harder.

Yeah, I realized right after I sent this that you can't usually truncate
an append-only file so O_APPEND really doesn't apply here.

> 2) Without enforcing O_APPEND, an application doing pwrite() or aios to
> an incorrect offset will see an error instead of potential file data
> corruption (due to the application bug, not the FS).
> 3) Since sequential zone file size is updated only on completion of
> direct IOs, O_APPEND would generate an incorrect offset for AIOs at
> queue depth bigger than 1.

ooh, good point. :)

> Thoughts ?

"Heh, that was a silly point to make on my part", or
"Maybe it's good that we have these discussions on the mailing lists" :)

> [...]
> >> +static ssize_t zonefs_file_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
> >> +{
> >> + struct inode *inode = file_inode(iocb->ki_filp);
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * Check that the write operation does not go beyond the zone size.
> >> + */
> >> + if (iocb->ki_pos >= ZONEFS_I(inode)->i_max_size)
> >> + return -EFBIG;
> >> +
> >> + if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DIRECT)
> >> + return zonefs_file_dio_write(iocb, from);
> >> +
> >> + return zonefs_file_buffered_write(iocb, from);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static const struct file_operations zonefs_file_operations = {
> >> + .open = generic_file_open,
> >
> > Hmm, ok, so there isn't any explicit O_APPEND requirement, even though
> > it looks like the filesystem enforces one.
>
> Yes, in purpose. See above for the reasons.
>
> [...]
> >> +static void zonefs_init_file_inode(struct inode *inode, struct blk_zone *zone)
> >> +{
> >> + struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb;
> >> + struct zonefs_sb_info *sbi = ZONEFS_SB(sb);
> >> + struct zonefs_inode_info *zi = ZONEFS_I(inode);
> >> + umode_t perm = sbi->s_perm;
> >> +
> >> + zi->i_ztype = zonefs_zone_type(zone);
> >> + zi->i_zsector = zone->start;
> >> +
> >> + switch (zone->cond) {
> >> + case BLK_ZONE_COND_OFFLINE:
> >> + /*
> >> + * Disable all accesses and set the file size to 0 for
> >> + * offline zones.
> >> + */
> >> + zi->i_wpoffset = 0;
> >> + zi->i_max_size = 0;
> >> + perm = 0;
> >> + break;
> >> + case BLK_ZONE_COND_READONLY:
> >> + /* Do not allow writes in read-only zones*/
> >> + perm &= ~(0222); /* S_IWUGO */
> >> + /* Fallthrough */
> >
> > You might want to set S_IMMUTABLE in i_flags here, since (I assume)
> > readonly zones are never, ever, going to be modifable in any way?
>
> Good point. Will do.
>
> > In which case, zonefs probably shouldn't let people run 'chmod a+w' on a
> > readonly zone. Either that or disallow mode changes via
> > zonefs_inode_setattr.
>
> Yes, will do.
>
> [...]
> >> +static int zonefs_create_zgroup(struct zonefs_zone_data *zd,
> >> + enum zonefs_ztype type)
> >> +{
> >> + struct super_block *sb = zd->sb;
> >> + struct zonefs_sb_info *sbi = ZONEFS_SB(sb);
> >> + struct blk_zone *zone, *next, *end;
> >> + char name[ZONEFS_NAME_MAX];
> >> + struct dentry *dir;
> >> + unsigned int n = 0;
> >> +
> >> + /* If the group is empty, there is nothing to do */
> >> + if (!zd->nr_zones[type])
> >> + return 0;
> >> +
> >> + dir = zonefs_create_inode(sb->s_root, zgroups_name[type], NULL);
> >> + if (!dir)
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * The first zone contains the super block: skip it.
> >> + */
> >> + end = zd->zones + blkdev_nr_zones(sb->s_bdev->bd_disk);
> >> + for (zone = &zd->zones[1]; zone < end; zone = next) {
> >> +
> >> + next = zone + 1;
> >> + if (zonefs_zone_type(zone) != type)
> >> + continue;
> >> +
> >> + /*
> >> + * For conventional zones, contiguous zones can be aggregated
> >> + * together to form larger files.
> >> + * Note that this overwrites the length of the first zone of
> >> + * the set of contiguous zones aggregated together.
> >> + * Only zones with the same condition can be agreggated so that
> >> + * offline zones are excluded and readonly zones are aggregated
> >> + * together into a read only file.
> >> + */
> >> + if (type == ZONEFS_ZTYPE_CNV &&
> >> + sbi->s_features & ZONEFS_F_AGGRCNV) {
> >
> > This probably needs parentheses around the flag check, e.g.
> >
> > if (type == ZONEFS_ZTYPE_CNV &&
> > (sbi->s_features & ZONEFS_F_AGGRCNV)) {
>
> gcc does not complain but I agree. It is cleaner and older gcc versions
> will also probably be happier :)
>
> [...]
> >> +
> >> +static int zonefs_get_zone_info(struct zonefs_zone_data *zd)
> >> +{
> >> + struct block_device *bdev = zd->sb->s_bdev;
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> >> + zd->zones = kvcalloc(blkdev_nr_zones(bdev->bd_disk),
> >> + sizeof(struct blk_zone), GFP_KERNEL);
> >
> > Hmm, so one 64-byte blk_zone structure for each zone on the disk?
> >
> > I have a 14TB SMR disk with ~459,000x 32M zones on it. That's going to
> > require a contiguous 30MB memory allocation to hold all the zone
> > information. Even your 15T drive from the commit message will need a
> > contiguous 3.8MB memory allocation for all the zone info.
> >
> > I wonder if each zone should really be allocated separately and then
> > indexed with an xarray or something like that to reduce the chance of
> > failure when memory is fragmented or tight.
> >
> > That could be subsequent work though, since in the meantime that just
> > makes zonefs mounts more likely to run out of memory and fail. I
> > suppose you don't hang on to the huge allocation for very long.
>
> No, this memory allocation is only for mount. It is dropped as soon as
> all the zone file inodes are created. Furthermore, this allocation is a
> kvalloc, not a kmalloc. So there is no memory continuity requirement.
> This is only an array of structures and that is not used to do IOs for
> the report zone itself.
>
> I debated trying to optimize (I mean reducing the mount temporary memory
> use) by processing mount in small chunks of zones instead of all zones
> in one go. I kept simple, but rather brutal, approach to keep the code
> simple. This can be rewritten and optimized at any time if we see
> problems appearing.

<nod> vmalloc space is quite limited on 32-bit platforms, so that's the
most likely place you'll get complaints.

> >
> >> + if (!zd->zones)
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> + /* Get zones information */
> >> + ret = blkdev_report_zones(bdev, 0, BLK_ALL_ZONES,
> >> + zonefs_get_zone_info_cb, zd);
> >> + if (ret < 0) {
> >> + zonefs_err(zd->sb, "Zone report failed %d\n", ret);
> >> + return ret;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + if (ret != blkdev_nr_zones(bdev->bd_disk)) {
> >> + zonefs_err(zd->sb, "Invalid zone report (%d/%u zones)\n",
> >> + ret, blkdev_nr_zones(bdev->bd_disk));
> >> + return -EIO;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static inline void zonefs_cleanup_zone_info(struct zonefs_zone_data *zd)
> >> +{
> >> + kvfree(zd->zones);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +/*
> >> + * Read super block information from the device.
> >> + */
> >> +static int zonefs_read_super(struct super_block *sb)
> >> +{
> >> + struct zonefs_sb_info *sbi = ZONEFS_SB(sb);
> >> + struct zonefs_super *super;
> >> + u32 crc, stored_crc;
> >> + struct page *page;
> >> + struct bio_vec bio_vec;
> >> + struct bio bio;
> >> + int ret;
> >> +
> >> + page = alloc_page(GFP_KERNEL);
> >> + if (!page)
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> + bio_init(&bio, &bio_vec, 1);
> >> + bio.bi_iter.bi_sector = 0;
> >> + bio_set_dev(&bio, sb->s_bdev);
> >> + bio_set_op_attrs(&bio, REQ_OP_READ, 0);
> >> + bio_add_page(&bio, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0);
> >> +
> >> + ret = submit_bio_wait(&bio);
> >> + if (ret)
> >> + goto out;
> >> +
> >> + super = page_address(page);
> >> +
> >> + stored_crc = super->s_crc;
> >> + super->s_crc = 0;
> >> + crc = crc32_le(ZONEFS_MAGIC, (unsigned char *)super,
> >> + sizeof(struct zonefs_super));
> >
> > Unusual; usually crc32 computations are seeded with ~0U, but <shrug>.
>
> No strong opinion on this one. I will change to ~0U to follow the
> general convention.

Ok.

> > Anyway, this looks to be in decent shape now, modulo other comments.
>
> Thank you for your comments. Sending a V3.

Ok, I'll flip over to that thread now.

--D

>
>
>
> --
> Damien Le Moal
> Western Digital Research

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-24 05:29    [W:0.058 / U:1.844 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site