Re: [PATCH 6/8] btrfs: Use shared inode lock for direct writes within EOF

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 5:22 PM Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@xxxxxxxx>
>
> This is to parallelize direct writes within EOF or with direct I/O
> reads. This covers the race with truncate() accidentally increasing the
> filesize.
>
> Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@xxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/file.c | 25 +++++++------------------
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/file.c b/fs/btrfs/file.c
> index aa6be931620b..c446a4aeb867 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/file.c
> @@ -1957,12 +1957,18 @@ static ssize_t btrfs_direct_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
>         loff_t endbyte;
>         int err;
>         size_t count = 0;
> -       bool relock = false;
>         int flags = IOMAP_DIOF_PGINVALID_FAIL;
>         int ilock_flags = 0;
>
>         if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT)
>                 ilock_flags |= BTRFS_ILOCK_TRY;
> +       /*
> +        * If the write DIO within EOF,  use a shared lock
> +        */
> +       if (pos + count <= i_size_read(inode))
> +               ilock_flags |= BTRFS_ILOCK_SHARED;
> +       else if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT)
> +               return -EAGAIN;

In the next iteration, please rebase the patchset on a more recent misc-next.

That hunk returning -EAGAIN is buggy and was removed a couple weeks
ago in a patchset fixing several bugs with NOWAIT writes.

Thanks.

>
>         err = btrfs_inode_lock(inode, ilock_flags);
>         if (err < 0)
> @@ -1975,20 +1981,6 @@ static ssize_t btrfs_direct_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
>         if (check_direct_IO(fs_info, from, pos))
>                 goto buffered;
>
> -       count = iov_iter_count(from);
> -       /*
> -        * If the write DIO is beyond the EOF, we need update the isize, but it
> -        * is protected by i_mutex. So we can not unlock the i_mutex at this
> -        * case.
> -        */
> -       if (pos + count <= inode->i_size) {
> -               inode_unlock(inode);
> -               relock = true;
> -       } else if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT) {
> -               err = -EAGAIN;
> -               goto out;
> -       }
> -
>         if (is_sync_kiocb(iocb))
>                 flags |= IOMAP_DIOF_WAIT_FOR_COMPLETION;
>
> @@ -1997,9 +1989,6 @@ static ssize_t btrfs_direct_write(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
>                                flags);
>         up_read(&BTRFS_I(inode)->dio_sem);
>
> -       if (relock)
> -               inode_lock(inode);
> -
>         if (written < 0 || !iov_iter_count(from)) {
>                 err = written;
>                 goto error;
> --
> 2.25.0
>


-- 
Filipe David Manana,

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't — you're right.”




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux