[v2,1/2] direct-io: cleanup get_more_blocks()

On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 01:38:05PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Eryu Guan <guaneryu@gmail.com> writes:
> 
> > Save one level of indention by returning error early.
> >
> > Introduce some local variables to make the code easier to read a bit,
> > and do preparation for next patch.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eryu Guan <guaneryu@gmail.com>
> 
> Hi, Eryu,
> 
> I don't think you have a full appreciation of the amount of optimization
> that goes into this code.  I don't see anything wrong with what you've
> done, but I also don't want to introduce all these local variables and
> change a branch in order to find out several months down the line that
> we introduced some TPC-C regression of .5%.

Agreed, I overdid it, v2 fix doesn't need the cleanup, I realized it
after I sent it out.

> 
> Look, I think this is all you need for the full fix:
> 
> diff --git a/fs/direct-io.c b/fs/direct-io.c
> index 4720377..f66754e 100644
> --- a/fs/direct-io.c
> +++ b/fs/direct-io.c
> @@ -639,8 +639,7 @@ static int get_more_blocks(struct dio *dio, struct dio_submit *sdio,
>  		 */
>  		create = dio->rw & WRITE;
>  		if (dio->flags & DIO_SKIP_HOLES) {
> -			if (sdio->block_in_file < (i_size_read(dio->inode) >>
> -							sdio->blkbits))
> +			if (fs_startblk < fs_count)
>  				create = 0;
>  		}
>  
>  
> Can you just test that?

I tested it and it did fix both of the issues for me. But it seems that
it's a bit overkilled, in certain case block allocation should be
allowed, but it still sets 'create' to 0.

For example, append writing 8k to a 4k sparse file (so offset is also
4k), on a 4k block size filesystem, fs_startblk(1) is smaller than
fs_count(2), so it still sets 'create' to 0. But block allocation should
be allowed in this case, and both the original code and my patch do so.

So I simplified my real fix to this (updates for comments not included):


Do you think it's a proper fix?

Thanks again for your time!

Eryu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

On Wed 11-05-16 21:23:12, Eryu Guan wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 01:38:05PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > Look, I think this is all you need for the full fix:
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/direct-io.c b/fs/direct-io.c
> > index 4720377..f66754e 100644
> > --- a/fs/direct-io.c
> > +++ b/fs/direct-io.c
> > @@ -639,8 +639,7 @@ static int get_more_blocks(struct dio *dio, struct dio_submit *sdio,
> >  		 */
> >  		create = dio->rw & WRITE;
> >  		if (dio->flags & DIO_SKIP_HOLES) {
> > -			if (sdio->block_in_file < (i_size_read(dio->inode) >>
> > -							sdio->blkbits))
> > +			if (fs_startblk < fs_count)

fs_count is number of blocks in the request so that is not correct...

> >  				create = 0;
> >  		}
> >  
> >  
> > Can you just test that?
> 
> I tested it and it did fix both of the issues for me. But it seems that
> it's a bit overkilled, in certain case block allocation should be
> allowed, but it still sets 'create' to 0.
> 
> For example, append writing 8k to a 4k sparse file (so offset is also
> 4k), on a 4k block size filesystem, fs_startblk(1) is smaller than
> fs_count(2), so it still sets 'create' to 0. But block allocation should
> be allowed in this case, and both the original code and my patch do so.
> 
> So I simplified my real fix to this (updates for comments not included):
> 
> diff --git a/fs/direct-io.c b/fs/direct-io.c
> index 4720377..0cace3e 100644
> --- a/fs/direct-io.c
> +++ b/fs/direct-io.c
> @@ -639,8 +639,8 @@ static int get_more_blocks(struct dio *dio, struct dio_submit *sdio,
>                  */
>                 create = dio->rw & WRITE;
>                 if (dio->flags & DIO_SKIP_HOLES) {
> -                       if (sdio->block_in_file < (i_size_read(dio->inode) >>
> -                                                       sdio->blkbits))
> +                       if (fs_startblk <= ((i_size_read(dio->inode) - 1) >>
> +                                                       i_blkbits))
>                                 create = 0;

Yes, this is correct as far as I can tell.

								Honza