Thread (34 messages) 34 messages, 4 authors, 2017-12-21

Re: [PATCH v3 19/19] fs: handle inode->i_version more efficiently

From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
Date: 2017-12-18 19:35:20
Also in: linux-btrfs, linux-ext4, linux-fsdevel, linux-nfs, linux-xfs, lkml
Subsystem: the rest · Maintainer: Linus Torvalds

On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 12:36 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 12:22:20PM -0500, Jeff Layton wrote:
quoted
On Mon, 2017-12-18 at 17:34 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
quoted
On Mon 18-12-17 10:11:56, Jeff Layton wrote:
quoted
 static inline bool
 inode_maybe_inc_iversion(struct inode *inode, bool force)
 {
-	atomic64_t *ivp = (atomic64_t *)&inode->i_version;
+	u64 cur, old, new;
 
-	atomic64_inc(ivp);
+	cur = (u64)atomic64_read(&inode->i_version);
+	for (;;) {
+		/* If flag is clear then we needn't do anything */
+		if (!force && !(cur & I_VERSION_QUERIED))
+			return false;
The fast path here misses any memory barrier. Thus it seems this query
could be in theory reordered before any store that happened to modify the
inode? Or maybe we could race and miss the fact that in fact this i_version
has already been queried? But maybe there's some higher level locking that
makes sure this is all a non-issue... But in that case it would deserve
some comment I guess.
There's no higher-level locking. Getting locking out of this codepath is
a good thing IMO. The larger question here is whether we really care
about ordering this with anything else.

The i_version, as implemented today, is not ordered with actual changes
to the inode. We only take the i_lock today when modifying it, not when
querying it. It's possible today that you could see the results of a
change and then do a fetch of the i_version that doesn't show an
increment vs. a previous change.

It'd be nice if this were atomic with the actual changes that it
represents, but I think that would be prohibitively expensive. That may
be something we need to address. I'm not sure we really want to do it as
part of this patchset though.
I don't think we need full atomicity, but we *do* need the i_version
increment to be seen as ordered after the inode change.  That should be
relatively inexpensive, yes?

Otherwise an inode change could be overlooked indefinitely, because a
client could cache the old contents with the new i_version value and
never see the i_version change again as long as the inode isn't touched
again.

(If the client instead caches new data with the old inode version, there
may be an unnecessary cache invalidation next time the client queries
the change attribute.  That's a performance bug, but not really a
correctness problem, at least for clients depending only on
close-to-open semantics: they'll only depend on seeing the new change
attribute after the change has been flushed to disk.  The performance
problem should be mitigated by the race being very rare.)
Perhaps something like this patch squashed into #19?

This should tighten up the initial loads and stores, like Jan was
suggesting (I think). The increments are done via cmpxchg so they
already have a full implied barrier (IIUC), and we don't exit the loop
until it succeeds or it looks like the flag is set.

To be clear though:

This series does not try to order the i_version update with any other
inode metadata or data (though we generally do update it after a write
is done, rather than before or during).

Inode field updates are not at all synchronized either and this series
does not change that. A stat() is also generally done locklessly so you
can easily get a half-baked attributes there if you hit the timing
wrong.

-------------------------8<--------------------------

[PATCH] SQUASH: add memory barriers around i_version accesses

Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <redacted>
---
 include/linux/iversion.h | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/iversion.h b/include/linux/iversion.h
index a9fbf99709df..39ec9aa9e08e 100644
--- a/include/linux/iversion.h
+++ b/include/linux/iversion.h
@@ -87,6 +87,25 @@ static inline void
 inode_set_iversion_raw(struct inode *inode, const u64 val)
 {
 	atomic64_set(&inode->i_version, val);
+	smp_wmb();
+}
+
+/**
+ * inode_peek_iversion_raw - grab a "raw" iversion value
+ * @inode: inode from which i_version should be read
+ *
+ * Grab a "raw" inode->i_version value and return it. The i_version is not
+ * flagged or converted in any way. This is mostly used to access a self-managed
+ * i_version.
+ *
+ * With those filesystems, we want to treat the i_version as an entirely
+ * opaque value.
+ */
+static inline u64
+inode_peek_iversion_raw(const struct inode *inode)
+{
+	smp_rmb();
+	return atomic64_read(&inode->i_version);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -152,7 +171,7 @@ inode_maybe_inc_iversion(struct inode *inode, bool force)
 {
 	u64 cur, old, new;
 
-	cur = (u64)atomic64_read(&inode->i_version);
+	cur = inode_peek_iversion_raw(inode);
 	for (;;) {
 		/* If flag is clear then we needn't do anything */
 		if (!force && !(cur & I_VERSION_QUERIED))
@@ -183,23 +202,6 @@ inode_inc_iversion(struct inode *inode)
 	inode_maybe_inc_iversion(inode, true);
 }
 
-/**
- * inode_peek_iversion_raw - grab a "raw" iversion value
- * @inode: inode from which i_version should be read
- *
- * Grab a "raw" inode->i_version value and return it. The i_version is not
- * flagged or converted in any way. This is mostly used to access a self-managed
- * i_version.
- *
- * With those filesystems, we want to treat the i_version as an entirely
- * opaque value.
- */
-static inline u64
-inode_peek_iversion_raw(const struct inode *inode)
-{
-	return atomic64_read(&inode->i_version);
-}
-
 /**
  * inode_iversion_need_inc - is the i_version in need of being incremented?
  * @inode: inode to check
@@ -248,7 +250,7 @@ inode_query_iversion(struct inode *inode)
 {
 	u64 cur, old, new;
 
-	cur = atomic64_read(&inode->i_version);
+	cur = inode_peek_iversion_raw(inode);
 	for (;;) {
 		/* If flag is already set, then no need to swap */
 		if (cur & I_VERSION_QUERIED)
-- 
2.14.3
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help