Re: [PATCH v4 14/27] fs: new infrastructure for writeback error handling and reporting

[Jeff Layton]

On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 13:48 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 09-05-17 11:49:17, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > Most filesystems currently use mapping_set_error and
> > filemap_check_errors for setting and reporting/clearing writeback errors
> > at the mapping level. filemap_check_errors is indirectly called from
> > most of the filemap_fdatawait_* functions and from
> > filemap_write_and_wait*. These functions are called from all sorts of
> > contexts to wait on writeback to finish -- e.g. mostly in fsync, but
> > also in truncate calls, getattr, etc.
> > 
> > The non-fsync callers are problematic. We should be reporting writeback
> > errors during fsync, but many places spread over the tree clear out
> > errors before they can be properly reported, or report errors at
> > nonsensical times.
> > 
> > If I get -EIO on a stat() call, there is no reason for me to assume that
> > it is because some previous writeback failed. The fact that it also
> > clears out the error such that a subsequent fsync returns 0 is a bug,
> > and a nasty one since that's potentially silent data corruption.
> > 
> > This patch adds a small bit of new infrastructure for setting and
> > reporting errors during address_space writeback. While the above was my
> > original impetus for adding this, I think it's also the case that
> > current fsync semantics are just problematic for userland. Most
> > applications that call fsync do so to ensure that the data they wrote
> > has hit the backing store.
> > 
> > In the case where there are multiple writers to the file at the same
> > time, this is really hard to determine. The first one to call fsync will
> > see any stored error, and the rest get back 0. The processes with open
> > fds may not be associated with one another in any way. They could even
> > be in different containers, so ensuring coordination between all fsync
> > callers is not really an option.
> > 
> > One way to remedy this would be to track what file descriptor was used
> > to dirty the file, but that's rather cumbersome and would likely be
> > slow. However, there is a simpler way to improve the semantics here
> > without incurring too much overhead.
> > 
> > This set adds an errseq_t to struct address_space, and a corresponding
> > one is added to struct file. Writeback errors are recorded in the
> > mapping's errseq_t, and the one in struct file is used as the "since"
> > value.
> > 
> > This changes the semantics of the Linux fsync implementation such that
> > applications can now use it to determine whether there were any
> > writeback errors since fsync(fd) was last called (or since the file was
> > opened in the case of fsync having never been called).
> > 
> > Note that those writeback errors may have occurred when writing data
> > that was dirtied via an entirely different fd, but that's the case now
> > with the current mapping_set_error/filemap_check_error infrastructure.
> > This will at least prevent you from getting a false report of success.
> > 
> > The new behavior is still consistent with the POSIX spec, and is more
> > reliable for application developers. This patch just adds some basic
> > infrastructure for doing this. Later patches will change the existing
> > code to use this new infrastructure.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> Just one nit below. Otherwise the patch looks good to me. You can add:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> 
> > diff --git a/fs/file_table.c b/fs/file_table.c
> > index 954d510b765a..d6138b6411ff 100644
> > --- a/fs/file_table.c
> > +++ b/fs/file_table.c
> > @@ -168,6 +168,7 @@ struct file *alloc_file(const struct path *path, fmode_t mode,
> >  	file->f_path = *path;
> >  	file->f_inode = path->dentry->d_inode;
> >  	file->f_mapping = path->dentry->d_inode->i_mapping;
> > +	file->f_wb_err = filemap_sample_wb_error(file->f_mapping);
> 
> Why do you sample here when you also sample in do_dentry_open()? I didn't
> find any alloc_file() callers that would possibly care about writeback
> errors... 
> 
> 								Honza

I basically used the setting of f_mapping as a guideline as to where to
sample it for initialization. My thinking was that if f_mapping ever
ended up different then you'd probably also want f_wb_err to be
resampled anyway.

I can drop this hunk if you think we don't need it.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>