[Ocfs2-devel] [patch 09/11] ocfs2: llseek requires ocfs2 inode lock for the file in SEEK_END
Jensen
shencanquan at huawei.com
Mon Feb 10 00:51:32 PST 2014
On 2014/2/8 10:07, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 09:26:03AM +0800, Jensen wrote:
>> On 2014/2/8 6:44, Mark Fasheh wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 06, 2014 at 03:50:29PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 6 Feb 2014 15:42:53 -0800 Mark Fasheh <mfasheh at suse.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 12:47:09PM -0800, akpm at linux-foundation.org wrote:
>>>>>> From: Jensen <shencanquan at huawei.com>
>>>>>> Subject: ocfs2: llseek requires ocfs2 inode lock for the file in SEEK_END
>>>>>>
>>>>>> llseek requires ocfs2 inode lock for updating the file size in SEEK_END.
>>>>>> because the file size maybe update on another node.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This bug can be reproduce the following scenario: at first, we dd a test
>>>>>> fileA, the file size is 10k.
>>>>> Basically, you want to amke SEEK_END cluster-aware. This patch would be the
>>>>> right way to do it.
>>>> Sunil was worried about the performance impact. Correctness beats
>>>> performance, but some quantitative testing would be useful?
>>> Performance is my primary concern as well. I thought of writing it up but
>>> realized I don't really have any evidence off the top of my head one way or
>>> the other that this might slow us down.
>>>
>>> That said, I kind of question the usefulness of this patch - we got
>>> along pretty well so far without locking in lseek and some random dd(1) test
>>> doesn't really provide a great end-user reason for why we should do this.
>>>
>>> I will note that gfs2 locks for SEEK_END.
>>>
>>>
>>> Testing would help to answer this, yes. Jensen is this something you can do?
>>> I'm not sure exactly what we would run yet though, I have to think about
>>> that (or maybe someone can suggest something).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> --Mark
>>>
>> ocfs2 is a cluster file system. as like read/write/open/rmdir/unlink interface which think of cluster-aware. I think the seek interface need
>> cluster-aware. May be it has the performance impact. but it's correctness is more important than performance.
> That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't quantify the performance impact of your patch.
>
> Please help us measure what the end-user impact of this change will be.
> --Mark
test result: 1000000 times lseek call;
index lseek with inode lock (unit:us) lseek without inode lock (unit:us)
1 1168162 555383
2 1168011 549504
3 1170538 549396
4 1170375 551685
5 1170444 556719
6 1174364 555307
7 1163294 551552
8 1170080 549350
9 1162464 553700
10 1165441 552594
avg 1168317 552519
avg with lock - avg without lock = 615798
(avg with lock - avg without lock)/1000000=0.615798 us
>
> --
> Mark Fasheh
>
> .
>
More information about the Ocfs2-devel
mailing list