Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] untorn buffered writes

[Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 8:13 AM Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Last year, I talked about an interest to provide database such as
> MySQL with the ability to issue writes that would not be torn as they
> write 16k database pages[1].
>
> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/932900/
>
> There is a patch set being worked on by John Garry which provides
> stronger guarantees than what is actually required for this use case,
> called "atomic writes".  The proposed interface for this facility
> involves passing a new flag to pwritev2(2), RWF_ATOMIC, which requests
> that the specific write be written to the storage device in an
> all-or-nothing fashion, and if it can not be guaranteed, that the
> write should fail.  In this interface, if the userspace sends an 128k
> write with the RWF_ATOMIC flag, if the storage device will support
> that an all-or-nothing write with the given size and alignment the
> kernel will guarantee that it will be sent as a single 128k request
> --- although from the database perspective, if it is using 16k
> database pages, it only needs to guarantee that if the write is torn,
> it only happen on a 16k boundary.  That is, if the write is split into
> 32k and 96k request, that would be totally fine as far as the database
> is concerned --- and so the RWF_ATOMIC interface is a stronger
> guarantee than what might be needed.
>
> So far, the "atomic write" patchset has only focused on Direct I/O,
> where this stronger guarantee is mostly harmless, even if it is
> unneeded for the original motivating use case.  Which might be OK,
> since perhaps there might be other future use cases where they might
> want some 32k writes to be "atomic", while other 128k writes might
> want to be "atomic" (that is to say, persisted with all-or-nothing
> semantics), and the proposed RWF_ATOMIC interface might permit that
> --- even though no one can seem top come up with a credible use case
> that would require this.
>
>
> However, this proposed interface is highly problematic when it comes
> to buffered writes, and Postgress database uses buffered, not direct
> I/O writes.   Suppose the database performs a 16k write, followed by a
> 64k write, followed by a 128k write --- and these writes are done
> using a file descriptor that does not have O_DIRECT enable, and let's
> suppose they are written using the proposed RWF_ATOMIC flag.   In
> order to provide the (stronger than we need) RWF_ATOMIC guarantee, the
> kernel would need to store the fact that certain pages in the page
> cache were dirtied as part of a 16k RWF_ATOMIC write, and other pages
> were dirtied as part of a 32k RWF_ATOMIC write, etc, so that the
> writeback code knows what the "atomic" guarantee that was made at
> write time.   This very quickly becomes a mess.
>
> Another interface that one be much simpler to implement for buffered
> writes would be one the untorn write granularity is set on a per-file
> descriptor basis, using fcntl(2).  We validate whether the untorn
> write granularity is one that can be supported when fcntl(2) is
> called, and we also store in the inode the largest untorn write
> granularity that has been requested by a file descriptor for that
> inode.  (When the last file descriptor opened for writing has been
> closed, the largest untorn write granularity for that inode can be set
> back down to zero.)
>
> The write(2) system call will check whether the size and alignment of
> the write are valid given the requested untorn write granularity.  And
> in the writeback path, the writeback will detect if there are
> contiguous (aligned) dirty pages, and make sure they are sent to the
> storage device in multiples of the largest requested untorn write
> granularity.  This provides only the guarantees required by databases,
> and obviates the need to track which pages were dirtied by an
> RWF_ATOMIC flag, and the size of the RWF_ATOMIC write.
>
> I'd like to discuss at LSF/MM what the best interface would be for
> buffered, untorn writes (I am deliberately avoiding the use of the
> word "atomic" since that presumes stronger guarantees than what we
> need, and because it has led to confusion in previous discussions),
> and what might be needed to support it.
>


Seems a duplicate of this topic proposed by Luis?

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/ZdfDxN26VOFaT_Tv@bombadil.infradead.org/

Maybe you guys want to co-lead this session?

Thanks,
Amir.