lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Feb]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH/RFC] VFS: support parallel updates in the one directory.
On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 03:38:48PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 09:31:28AM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > On Feb 23, 2022, at 22:57, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > I added this:
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c
> > > @@ -87,6 +87,7 @@ xfs_inode_alloc(
> > > /* VFS doesn't initialise i_mode or i_state! */
> > > VFS_I(ip)->i_mode = 0;
> > > VFS_I(ip)->i_state = 0;
> > > + VFS_I(ip)->i_flags |= S_PAR_UPDATE;
> > > mapping_set_large_folios(VFS_I(ip)->i_mapping);
> > >
> > > XFS_STATS_INC(mp, vn_active);
> > >
> > > and ran my highly sophisticated test in an XFS directory:
> > >
> > > for i in {1..70}; do ( for j in {1000..8000}; do touch $j; rm -f $j ; done ) & done
>
> I think you want something faster here, like ln to hardlink an existing
> file into the directory.
>
> > > This doesn't crash - which is a good sign.
> > > While that was going I tried
> > > while : ; do ls -l ; done
> > >
> > > it sometimes reports garbage for the stat info:
> > >
> > > total 0
> > > -????????? ? ? ? ? ? 1749
> > > -????????? ? ? ? ? ? 1764
> > > -????????? ? ? ? ? ? 1765
> > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Feb 24 16:47 1768
> > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Feb 24 16:47 1770
> > > -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 0 Feb 24 16:47 1772
> > > ....
> > >
> > > I *think* that is bad - probably the "garbage" that you referred to?
> > >
> > > Obviously I gets lots of
> > > ls: cannot access '1764': No such file or directory
> > > ls: cannot access '1749': No such file or directory
> > > ls: cannot access '1780': No such file or directory
> > > ls: cannot access '1765': No such file or directory
> > >
> > > but that is normal and expected when you are creating and deleting
> > > files during the ls.
> >
> > The "ls -l" output with "???" is exactly the case where the filename is
> > in readdir() but stat() on a file fails due to an unavoidable userspace
> > race between the two syscalls and the concurrent unlink(). This is
> > probably visible even without the concurrent dirops patch.
> >
> > The list of affected filenames even correlates with the reported errors:
> > 1764, 1765, 1769
> >
> > It looks like everything is working as expected.
>
> Here, yes.
>
> A problem that I saw a week or two ago with online fsck is that an evil
> thread repeatedly link()ing and unlink()ing a file into an otherwise
> empty directory while racing a thread calling readdir() in a loop will
> eventually trigger a corruption report on the directory namecheck
> because the loop in xfs_dir2_sf_getdents that uses sfp->count as a loop
> counter will race with the unlink decrementing sfp->count and run off
> the end of the inline directory data buffer.

Ah, shortform dirs might need the readdir moved inside the

lock_mode = xfs_ilock_data_map_shared(dp);

section so that the ILOCK is held while readdir is pulling the
dirents out of the inode - there's no buffer lock to serialise that
against concurrent modifications like there are for block/leaf/node
formats.

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-02-26 00:17    [W:0.299 / U:0.112 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site