Re: Hole punching and mmap races

On Fri 08-06-12 10:57:00, Dave Chinner wrote:

On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 11:58:35PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:

quoted

On Wed 06-06-12 23:36:16, Dave Chinner wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 11:58:27AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:

quoted

On Wed 06-06-12 10:06:36, Dave Chinner wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 01:15:30AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:

quoted

On Tue 05-06-12 15:51:50, Dave Chinner wrote:

quoted

On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 02:35:38PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:

quoted

quoted

To me the issue at hand is that we have no method of serialising
multi-page operations on the mapping tree between the filesystem and
the VM, and that seems to be the fundamental problem we face in this
whole area of mmap/buffered/direct IO/truncate/holepunch coherency.
Hence it might be better to try to work out how to fix this entire
class of problems rather than just adding a complex kuldge that just
papers over the current "hot" symptom....

  Yes, looking at the above table, the amount of different synchronization
mechanisms is really striking. So probably we should look at some
possibility of unifying at least some cases.

It seems to me that we need some thing in between the fine grained
page lock and the entire-file IO exclusion lock. We need to maintain
fine grained locking for mmap scalability, but we also need to be
able to atomically lock ranges of pages.

  Yes, we also need to keep things fine grained to keep scalability of
direct IO and buffered reads...

quoted

I guess if we were to nest a fine grained multi-state lock
inside both the IO exclusion lock and the mmap_sem, we might be able
to kill all problems in one go.

Exclusive access on a range needs to be granted to:

	- direct IO
	- truncate
	- hole punch

so they can be serialised against mmap based page faults, writeback
and concurrent buffered IO. Serialisation against themselves is an
IO/fs exclusion problem.

Shared access for traversal or modification needs to be granted to:

	- buffered IO
	- mmap page faults
	- writeback

Each of these cases can rely on the existing page locks or IO
exclusion locks to provide safety for concurrent access to the same
ranges. This means that once we have access granted to a range we
can check truncate races once and ignore the problem until we drop
the access.  And the case of taking a page fault within a buffered
IO won't deadlock because both take a shared lock....

  You cannot just use a lock (not even a shared one) both above and under
mmap_sem. That is deadlockable in presence of other requests for exclusive
locking...

Well, that's assuming that exclusive lock requests form a barrier to
new shared requests. Remember that I'm talking about a range lock
here, which we can make up whatever semantics we'd need, including
having "shared lock if already locked shared" nested locking
semantics which avoids this page-fault-in-buffered-IO-copy-in/out
problem....

  That's true. But if you have semantics like this, constant writing to
or reading from a file could starve e.g. truncate. So I'd prefer not to
open this can of worms and keep semantics of rw semaphores if possible.

Except truncate uses the i_mutex/i_iolock for exclusion, so it would
never get held off any more than it already does by buffered IO in
this case. i.e. the mapping tree range lock is inside the locks used
for truncate serialisation, so we don't have a situation where other
operations woul dbe held off by such an IO pattern...

  True. I was just hoping that i_mutex won't be needed if we get our new
lock right.

quoted

quoted

Furthermore, with direct IO you have to set in stone the ordering of
mmap_sem and range lock anyway because there we need an exclusive lock.

Yes, mmap basically requires exclusive mmap_sem->shared range lock ordering. For
direct IO, we only need the mmap_sem for the get_user_pages() call
IIRC, so that requires exclusive range lock-> shared mmap_sem
ordering. Unless we can lift the range lock in the mmap path outside
the mmap_sem, we're still in the same boat....

  Yes. Just as I said before it is not an unsolvable situation since for
direct IO we can grab our lock after get_user_pages() call. I was thinking
about it for a while and I realized, that if we have range lock that we
take during page fault, buffered IO, direct IO, truncate, punch hole, we
actually don't need a shared version of it. Just the fact it would be range
lock is enough to avoid serialization.

Well, we currently allow overlapping direct IO to the same range in
XFS, The order of completion is underfined, just like concurrent IOs
to the same sector of a disk, but it basically results in direct IO
on an XFS file to behave exactly the same way as concurrent IO to a raw
device would....

Now, that does cause some problems for naive users of direct IO
(just like those same naive users mix mmap, buffered and direct IO to
the same file), but if we are going to make everything else coherent
then I have no problems with dropping this functionality and ony
allowing concurrency for non-overlapping requests.

  Yeah, overlapping direct IO is asking for trouble (except possibly two
direct IO reads).

The other thing is that concurrent overlapping buffered reads to the
same range will only serialise on page locks if the range can be
lock shared, so there would be no change in behaviour. Making the
range lock exclusive would serialise the overlapping reads at a much
higher level and will result in a change of cached read behaviour
and potentially a significant reduction in performance. This may be
a corner case no-one cares about, but exclusive range locking will
definitely impact such a workload....

  For buffered reads we would lock page-by-page anyway (again due to
locking constraints with mmap_sem when copying what we've read) so there
shouldn't be any difference to current level of concurrency.

quoted

Also I was thinking that since lock ordering forces our new lock to be
relatively close to page lock and page lock is serializing quite some of
IO operations anyway,

That's the observation that has led me to call it a "mapping
tree" lock.

  I've internally called the locking function lock_mapping_range() ;).

quoted

it might be workable (and actually reasonably easy
to grasp for developers) if the range lock is coupled with page lock - i.e.
locking a range will be equivalent to locking each page in a range, except
that this way you can "lock" pages which are not present and thus forbid
their creation.

Nice idea, but I think that is introducing requirements and
potential complexity way beyond what we need right now. It's already
a complex problem, so lets not make it any harder to validate than
it already will be... :/

As it is, we can't "forbid" the creation of pages - we control
access to the mapping tree, which allows us to prevent insertion or
removal of pages from a given range.  That's exactly how it will
serialise DIO against buffered/mmap IO, hole punch/truncate against
mmap, and so on. It's a mapping tree access control mechanism, not a
page serialisation mechanism...

  I agree, I was imprecise here and it's good to realize exactly what we
guard.

quoted

Also we could implement the common case of locking a range
containing single page by just taking page lock so we save modification of
interval tree in the common case and generally make the tree smaller (of
course, at the cost of somewhat slowing down cases where we want to lock
larger ranges).

That seems like premature optimistion to me, and all the cases I
think we need to care about are locking large ranges of the tree.
Let's measure what the overhead of tracking everything in a single
tree is first so we can then see what needs optimising...

  Umm, I agree that initially we probably want just to have the mapping
range lock ability, stick it somewhere to IO path and make things work.
Then we can look into making it faster / merging with page lock.

However I disagree we care most about locking large ranges. For all
buffered IO and all page faults we need to lock a range containing just a
single page. We cannot lock more due to locking constraints with mmap_sem.
So the places that will lock larger ranges are: direct IO, truncate, punch
hole. Writeback actually doesn't seem to need any additional protection at
least as I've sketched out things so far.

So single-page ranges matter at least as much as longer ranges. That's why
I came up with that page lock optimisation and merging...

Also, I don't think it can replace the page lock entirely because
the page lock as that also serialises against other parts of the VM
(e.g. memory reclaim). I'd prefer not to complicate the issue by
trying to be fancy - it's going to be hard enough to validate that
it works correctly without having to validate that it does not
introduce races that were previously prevented by the page lock.

  So I never meant to completely replace page lock. I agree that will be
almost impossible. I rather meant to add a capability of locking a range of
pages. But lets leave that for now.
 
									Honza
-- 
Jan Kara [off-list ref]
SUSE Labs, CR

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>