[Drbd-dev] Behaviour of verify: false positives -> true positives

Lars Ellenberg lars.ellenberg at linbit.com
Wed Oct 1 16:59:10 CEST 2008

On Wed, Oct 01, 2008 at 02:49:22PM +0200, Thomas Schoebel-Theuer wrote:
> > > Well, one problem is that the length of bvec could be nearly arbitrary
> > > (in theory),
> >
> Ok.
> > > But what about simply generating a completely new bio and copying over
> > > all the stuff by hand? This would mean to implement some sort of
> > > bio_copy() in the local code which could then later be lifted upstreams
> > > if other people liked it too. What do you think is better?
> >
> > no, I think it would be enough to just set (pseudo code)
> > copy_page->private = orig_page;
> Hmm. what if the caller used orig_page->private already and is now accessing 
> the page _in parallel_ to us? IMHO in combination with the next step it 
> _could_ lead to an observable difference:
> > bvec->bv_page = copy_page;
> IMHO this could cause a side effect for any observer accessing "his" page 
> via "his" orig_bio and finally arriving at our copy_page->private. I am not 
> sure whether this really happens in the kernel anywhere, but even if 
> currently not it probably could happen sometime in future. The idea behind 
> bio_copy() was to _never_ touch the original and all its transitively 
> reachable descendants in any way, just to be sure nothing can ever go wrong 
> with it (similar to a COW style). Well, the performance might be slightly 
> worse, but we are reasoning on correctness at a rather tricky high level.
> I am not sure whether it really does any harm, I'm just curious and cautious.

I think that is a reasonable attitude ;)

so we just don't bio_clone in drbd_req_new then,
but bio_alloc a fresh bio with our own bvec and own pages attached,
which will be submitted, _and_ be used to sendpage it over.
it has to do properly initialized, obviously.

we have to make sure to get an extra reference (bio_get) on that private
bio then, so it cannot vanish while being handed over to tcp, it has to
stay around until master bio completion (where an extra bio_put will
free it).

_maybe_ we could add full struct bio private_bio + reasonably sized bvec
array member to struct drbd_request, so we can skip the extra bio_alloc,
_get and _put (unless there is some paranoia code in the generic block
layer, which may be unhappy with that).

> Well, before implementing it I will reason on it for some time just to be sure 
> and convinced. Maybe I should implement both alternatives

implement the "most correct" alternative.

> and do some stress-testing on a debug kernel?


: Lars Ellenberg
: LINBIT | Your Way to High Availability
: DRBD/HA support and consulting http://www.linbit.com

DRBD® and LINBIT® are registered trademarks of LINBIT, Austria.

More information about the drbd-dev mailing list