RE: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: support revoking atomic written pages

From: Chao Yu
Date: Mon Feb 01 2016 - 05:05:23 EST

Next message: Byungchul Park: "Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched: Don't account tickless CPU load on tick"
Previous message: Alexander Kuleshov: "[PATCH] x86_64/setup: handle builtin command line early"
Next in thread: Jaegeuk Kim: "Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: support revoking atomic written pages"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Ping,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2016 8:03 AM
> To: Chao Yu
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: support revoking atomic written pages
>
> Hi Chao,
>
> On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 01:05:01PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> > Hi Jaegeuk,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2016 9:18 AM
> > > To: Chao Yu
> > > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: support revoking atomic written pages
> > >
> > > Hi Chao,
> > >
> > > I just injected -EIO for one page among two pages in total into database file.
> > > Then, I tested valid and invalid journal file to see how sqlite recovers the
> > > transaction.
> > >
> > > Interestingly, if journal is valid, database file is recovered, as I could see
> > > the transaction result even after it shows EIO.
> > > But, in the invalid journal case, somehow it drops database changes.
> >
> > If journal has valid data in its header and corrupted data in its body, sqlite will
> > recover db file from corrupted journal file, then db file will be corrupted.
> > So what you mean is: after recovery, db file still be fine? or sqlite fails to
> > recover due to drop data in journal since the header of journal is not valid?
>
> In the above case, I think I made broken journal header. At the same time, I
> broke database file too, but I could see that database file is recovered
> likewise roll-back. I couldn't find corruption of database.
>
> Okay, I'll test again by corrupting journal body with valid header.
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > > I'm not sure it was because I just skip second page write of database file tho.
> > > (I added random bytes into journal pages.)
> > > I'll break the database file with more random bytes likewise what I did for
> > > journal.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 11:43:06AM -0800, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 08, 2016 at 08:05:52PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > Hi Jaegeuk,
> > > > >
> > > > > Any progress on this patch?
> > > >
> > > > Swamped. Will do.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Chao Yu [mailto:chao@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, January 01, 2016 8:14 PM
> > > > > > To: Jaegeuk Kim
> > > > > > Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: support revoking atomic written pages
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Jaegeuk,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 1/1/16 11:50 AM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > Hi Chao,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>>> On Tue, Dec 29, 2015 at 11:12:36AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > > >>>>>> f2fs support atomic write with following semantics:
> > > > > > >>>>>> 1. open db file
> > > > > > >>>>>> 2. ioctl start atomic write
> > > > > > >>>>>> 3. (write db file) * n
> > > > > > >>>>>> 4. ioctl commit atomic write
> > > > > > >>>>>> 5. close db file
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> With this flow we can avoid file becoming corrupted when abnormal power
> > > > > > >>>>>> cut, because we hold data of transaction in referenced pages linked in
> > > > > > >>>>>> inmem_pages list of inode, but without setting them dirty, so these data
> > > > > > >>>>>> won't be persisted unless we commit them in step 4.
> > > > > > >>>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>>> But we should still hold journal db file in memory by using volatile write,
> > > > > > >>>>>> because our semantics of 'atomic write support' is not full, in step 4, we
> > > > > > >>>>>> could be fail to submit all dirty data of transaction, once partial dirty
> > > > > > >>>>>> data was committed in storage, db file should be corrupted, in this case,
> > > > > > >>>>>> we should use journal db to recover the original data in db file.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Originally, IOC_ABORT_VOLATILE_WRITE was supposed to handle commit failures,
> > > > > > >>>>> since database should get its error literally.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> So, the only thing that we need to do is keeping journal data for further db
> > > > > > >>>>> recovery.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> IMO, if we really support *atomic* interface, we don't need any journal data
> > > > > > >>>> kept by user, because f2fs already have it in its storage since we always
> > > > > > >>>> trigger OPU for pages written in atomic-write opened file, f2fs can easily try
> > > > > > >>>> to revoke (replace old to new in metadata) when any failure exist in atomic
> > > > > > >>>> write process.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Yeah, so current design does not fully support atomic writes. IOWs, volatile
> > > > > > >>> writes for journal files should be used together to minimize sqlite change as
> > > > > > >>> much as possible.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> But in current design, we still hold journal data in memory for recovering for
> > > > > > >>>> *rare* failure case. I think there are several issues:
> > > > > > >>>> a) most of time, we are in concurrent scenario, so if large number of journal
> > > > > > >>>> db files were opened simultaneously, we are under big memory pressure.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> In current android, I've seen that this is not a big concern. Even there is
> > > > > > >>> memory pressure, f2fs flushes volatile pages.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> When I change to redirty all volatile pages in ->writepage, android seems go
> > > > > > >> into an infinite loop when doing recovery flow of f2fs data partition in startup.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> if (f2fs_is_volatile_file(inode))
> > > > > > >> goto redirty_out;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Where did you put this? It doesn't flush at all? Why?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Original place in ->writepage, just remove two other conditions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To avoid potential random writebacking of dirty page in journal which
> > > > > > cause unpredicted corrupting in journal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Practically, the peak amount of journal writes depend on how many transactions
> > > > > > > are processing concurrently.
> > > > > > > I mean, in-memory pages are dropped at the end of every transaction.
> > > > > > > You can check the number of pages through f2fs_stat on your phone.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> I didn't dig details, but I think there may be a little risk for this design.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> b) If we are out of memory, reclaimer tries to write page of journal db into
> > > > > > >>>> disk, it will destroy db file.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> I don't understand. Could you elaborate why journal writes can corrupt db?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Normally, we keep pages of journal in memory, but partial page in journal
> > > > > > >> will be write out to device by reclaimer when out of memory. So this journal
> > > > > > >> may have valid data in its log head, but with corrupted data, then after
> > > > > > >> abnormal powe-cut, recovery with this journal before a transaction will
> > > > > > >> destroy db. Right?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Just think about sqlite without this feature.
> > > > > > > Broken journal is pretty normal case for sqlite.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe, if it is caused by bug or design issue of software, no matter db system
> > > > > > or filesystem, we should try our best to fix it to avoid generating broken journals.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> c) Though, we have journal db file, we will face failure of recovering db file
> > > > > > >>>> from journal db due to ENOMEM or EIO, then db file will be corrupted.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Do you mean the failure of recovering db with a complete journal?
> > > > > > >>> Why do we have to handle that? That's a database stuff, IMO.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Yes, just list for indicating we will face the same issue which is hard to
> > > > > > >> handle both in original design and new design, so the inner revoking failure
> > > > > > >> issue would not be a weak point or flaw of new design.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> d) Recovery flow will make data page dirty, triggering both data stream and
> > > > > > >>>> metadata stream, there should be more IOs than in inner revoking in
> > > > > > >>>> atomic-interface.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Well, do you mean there is no need to recover db after revoking?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Yes, revoking make the same effect like the recovery of sqlite, so after
> > > > > > >> revoking, recovery is no need.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Logically, it doesn't make sense. If there is a valid journal file, it should
> > > > > > > redo the previous transaction. No?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As we know, in sqlite, before we commit a transaction, we will use journal to
> > > > > > record original data of pages which will be updated in following transaction, so
> > > > > > in following if a) abnormal power-cut, b) commit error, c) redo command was
> > > > > > triggered by user, we will recover db with journal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ideally, if we support atomic write interface, in there should always return two
> > > > > > status in atomic write interface: success or fail. If success, transaction was
> > > > > > committed, otherwise, it looks like nothing happened, user will be told
> > > > > > transaction was failed. Then, journals in sqlite could no longer be used,
> > > > > > eventually no journal, no recovery.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The only thing we should concern is inner failure (e.g. ENOMEM, ENOSPC) of
> > > > > > revoking in commit interface since it could destroy db file permanently w/o
> > > > > > journal. IMO, some optimization could be done for these cases:
> > > > > > 1. ENOMEM: enable retrying or mark accessed flag in page in advance.
> > > > > > 2. ENOSPC: preallocate blocks for node blocks and data blocks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > These optimizations couldn't guarantee no failure in revoking operation
> > > > > > completely, luckily, those are not common cases, and they also happen in sqlite
> > > > > > w/o atomic feature.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > One more possible proposal is: if we support reflink feature like ocfs2/xfs, I
> > > > > > guess we can optimize DB like:
> > > > > > 1. reflink db to db.ref
> > > > > > 2. do transaction in db.ref
> > > > > > - failed, rm db.ref
> > > > > > - power-cut rm db.ref
> > > > > > 3. rename db.ref to db
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> One more case is that user can send a command to abort current transaction,
> > > > > > >> it should be happened before atomic_commit operation, which could easily
> > > > > > >> handle with abort_commit ioctl.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> e) Moreover, there should be a hole between 1) commit fail and 2) abort write
> &
> > > > > > >>>> recover, checkpoint will persist the corrupt data in db file, following abnormal
> > > > > > >>>> power-cut will leave that data in disk.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Yes, in that case, database should recover corrupted db with its journal file.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Journal could be corrupted as I descripted in b).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Okay, so what I'm thinking is like this.
> > > > > > > It seems there are two corruption cases after journal writes.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. power cut during atomic writes
> > > > > > > - broken journal file and clean db file -> give up
> > > > > > > - luckily, valid journal file and clean db file -> recover db
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. error during atomic writes
> > > > > > > a. power-cut before abort completion
> > > > > > > - broken journal file and broken db file -> revoking is needed!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > b. after abort
> > > > > > > - valid journal file and broken db file -> recover db (likewise plain sqlite)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Indeed, in the 2.a. case, we need revoking; I guess that's what you mentioned.
> > > > > > > But, I think, even if revoking is done, we should notify an error to abort and
> > > > > > > recover db by 2.b.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Something like this after successful revoking.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. power cut during atomic writes
> > > > > > > - broken journal file and clean db file -> give up
> > > > > > > - luckily, valid journal file and clean db file -> recover db
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. error during atomic writes w/ revoking
> > > > > > > a. power-cut before abort completion
> > > > > > > - broken journal file and clean db file -> give up
> > > > > > > - luckily, valid journal file and clean db file -> recover db
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > b. after abort
> > > > > > > - valid journal file and clean db file -> recover db
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Let me verify these scenarios first. :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > OK. :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>> With revoking supported design, we can not solve all above issues, we will still
> > > > > > >>>> face the same issue like c), but it will be a big improve if we can apply this
> > > > > > >>>> in our interface, since it provide a way to fix the issue a) b) d). And also
> for
> > > > > > >>>> e) case, we try to rescue data in first time that our revoking operation would
> be
> > > > > > >>>> protected by f2fs_lock_op to avoid checkpoint + power-cut.
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> If you don't want to have a big change in this interface or recovery flow, how
> > > > > > >>>> about keep them both, and add a mount option to control inner recovery flow?
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Hmm, okay. I believe the current design is fine for sqlite in android.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I believe new design will enhance in memory usage and error handling of sqlite
> > > > > > >> in android, and hope this can be applied. But, I can understand that if you
> > > > > > >> were considerring about risk control and backward compatibility, since this
> > > > > > >> change affects all atomic related ioctls.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> For other databases, I can understand that they can use atomic_write without
> > > > > > >>> journal control, which is a sort of stand-alone atomic_write.
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> It'd better to add a new ioctl for that, but before adding it, can we find
> > > > > > >>> any usecase for this feature? (e.g., postgresql, mysql, mariadb, couchdb?)
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> You mean investigating or we can only start when there is a clear commercial
> > > > > > >> demand ?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>> Then, I expect that we can define a more appropriate and powerful ioctl.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Agreed :)
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> How do you think? :)
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>> Thanks,
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> But, unfortunately, it seems that something is missing in the
> > > > > > >>>>> current implementation.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> So simply how about this?
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> A possible flow would be:
> > > > > > >>>>> 1. write journal data to volatile space
> > > > > > >>>>> 2. write db data to atomic space
> > > > > > >>>>> 3. in the error case, call ioc_abort_volatile_writes for both journal and db
> > > > > > >>>>> - flush/fsync journal data to disk
> > > > > > >>>>> - drop atomic data, and will be recovered by database with journal
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> From cb33fc8bc30981c370ec70fe68871130109793ec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > > > > >>>>> From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > >>>>> Date: Tue, 29 Dec 2015 15:46:33 -0800
> > > > > > >>>>> Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: fix f2fs_ioc_abort_volatile_write
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> There are two rules to handle aborting volatile or atomic writes.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> 1. drop atomic writes
> > > > > > >>>>> - we don't need to keep any stale db data.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> 2. write journal data
> > > > > > >>>>> - we should keep the journal data with fsync for db recovery.
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > >>>>> ---
> > > > > > >>>>> fs/f2fs/file.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> > > > > > >>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> > > > > > >>>>> index 91f576a..d16438a 100644
> > > > > > >>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
> > > > > > >>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> > > > > > >>>>> @@ -1433,9 +1433,16 @@ static int f2fs_ioc_abort_volatile_write(struct file
> *filp)
> > > > > > >>>>> if (ret)
> > > > > > >>>>> return ret;
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> - clear_inode_flag(F2FS_I(inode), FI_ATOMIC_FILE);
> > > > > > >>>>> - clear_inode_flag(F2FS_I(inode), FI_VOLATILE_FILE);
> > > > > > >>>>> - commit_inmem_pages(inode, true);
> > > > > > >>>>> + if (f2fs_is_atomic_file(inode)) {
> > > > > > >>>>> + clear_inode_flag(F2FS_I(inode), FI_ATOMIC_FILE);
> > > > > > >>>>> + commit_inmem_pages(inode, true);
> > > > > > >>>>> + }
> > > > > > >>>>> + if (f2fs_is_volatile_file(inode)) {
> > > > > > >>>>> + clear_inode_flag(F2FS_I(inode), FI_VOLATILE_FILE);
> > > > > > >>>>> + ret = commit_inmem_pages(inode, false);
> > > > > > >>>>> + if (!ret)
> > > > > > >>>>> + ret = f2fs_sync_file(filp, 0, LLONG_MAX, 0);
> > > > > > >>>>> + }
> > > > > > >>>>>
> > > > > > >>>>> mnt_drop_write_file(filp);
> > > > > > >>>>> return ret;
> > > > > > >>>>> --
> > > > > > >>>>> 2.6.3
> > > > > > >>>>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > > > > > > Linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > > > > > Linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance
> > > > APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month
> > > > Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now
> > > > Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now!
> > > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > > > Linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel

Next message: Byungchul Park: "Re: [PATCH 1/4] sched: Don't account tickless CPU load on tick"
Previous message: Alexander Kuleshov: "[PATCH] x86_64/setup: handle builtin command line early"
Next in thread: Jaegeuk Kim: "Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: support revoking atomic written pages"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]