On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 1:25 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 01:00:29PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:18 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 01:32:48PM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: > > > > Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 04:35:17PM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: > > > > >> Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > >> > > > > >> > Currently pmem_clear_poison() expects offset and len to be sector aligned. > > > > >> > Atleast that seems to be the assumption with which code has been written. > > > > >> > It is called only from pmem_do_bvec() which is called only from pmem_rw_page() > > > > >> > and pmem_make_request() which will only passe sector aligned offset and len. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Soon we want use this function from dax_zero_page_range() code path which > > > > >> > can try to zero arbitrary range of memory with-in a page. So update this > > > > >> > function to assume that offset and length can be arbitrary and do the > > > > >> > necessary alignments as needed. > > > > >> > > > > >> What caller will try to zero a range that is smaller than a sector? > > > > > > > > > > Hi Jeff, > > > > > > > > > > New dax zeroing interface (dax_zero_page_range()) can technically pass > > > > > a range which is less than a sector. Or which is bigger than a sector > > > > > but start and end are not aligned on sector boundaries. > > > > > > > > Sure, but who will call it with misaligned ranges? > > > > > > create a file foo.txt of size 4K and then truncate it. > > > > > > "truncate -s 23 foo.txt". Filesystems try to zero the bytes from 24 to > > > 4095. > > > > > > I have also written a test for this. > > > > > > https://github.com/rhvgoyal/misc/blob/master/pmem-tests/iomap-range-test.sh#L102 > > > > > > > > > > > > At this point of time, all I care about is that case of an arbitrary > > > > > range is handeled well. So if a caller passes a range in, we figure > > > > > out subrange which is sector aligned in terms of start and end, and > > > > > clear poison on those sectors and ignore rest of the range. And > > > > > this itself will be an improvement over current behavior where > > > > > nothing is cleared if I/O is not sector aligned. > > > > > > > > I don't think this makes sense. The caller needs to know about the > > > > blast radius of errors. This is why I asked for a concrete example. > > > > It might make more sense, for example, to return an error if not all of > > > > the errors could be cleared. > > > > > > > > >> > nvdimm_clear_poison() seems to assume offset and len to be aligned to > > > > >> > clear_err_unit boundary. But this is currently internal detail and is > > > > >> > not exported for others to use. So for now, continue to align offset and > > > > >> > length to SECTOR_SIZE boundary. Improving it further and to align it > > > > >> > to clear_err_unit boundary is a TODO item for future. > > > > >> > > > > >> When there is a poisoned range of persistent memory, it is recorded by > > > > >> the badblocks infrastructure, which currently operates on sectors. So, > > > > >> no matter what the error unit is for the hardware, we currently can't > > > > >> record/report to userspace anything smaller than a sector, and so that > > > > >> is what we expect when clearing errors. > > > > >> > > > > >> Continuing on for completeness, we will currently not map a page with > > > > >> badblocks into a process' address space. So, let's say you have 256 > > > > >> bytes of bad pmem, we will tell you we've lost 512 bytes, and even if > > > > >> you access a valid mmap()d address in the same page as the poisoned > > > > >> memory, you will get a segfault. > > > > >> > > > > >> Userspace can fix up the error by calling write(2) and friends to > > > > >> provide new data, or by punching a hole and writing new data to the hole > > > > >> (which may result in getting a new block, or reallocating the old block > > > > >> and zeroing it, which will clear the error). > > > > > > > > > > Fair enough. I do not need poison clearing at finer granularity. It might > > > > > be needed once dev_dax path wants to clear poison. Not sure how exactly > > > > > that works. > > > > > > > > It doesn't. :) > > > > > > > > >> > + /* > > > > >> > + * Callers can pass arbitrary offset and len. But nvdimm_clear_poison() > > > > >> > + * expects memory offset and length to meet certain alignment > > > > >> > + * restrction (clear_err_unit). Currently nvdimm does not export > > > > >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > > >> > + * required alignment. So align offset and length to sector boundary > > > > >> > > > > >> What is "nvdimm" in that sentence? Because the nvdimm most certainly > > > > >> does export the required alignment. Perhaps you meant libnvdimm? > > > > > > > > > > I meant nvdimm_clear_poison() function in drivers/nvdimm/bus.c. Whatever > > > > > it is called. It first queries alignement required (clear_err_unit) and > > > > > then makes sure range passed in meets that alignment requirement. > > > > > > > > My point was your comment is misleading. > > > > > > > > >> We could potentially support clearing less than a sector, but I'd have > > > > >> to understand the use cases better before offerring implementation > > > > >> suggestions. > > > > > > > > > > I don't need clearing less than a secotr. Once somebody needs it they > > > > > can implement it. All I am doing is making sure current logic is not > > > > > broken when dax_zero_page_range() starts using this logic and passes > > > > > an arbitrary range. We need to make sure we internally align I/O > > > > > > > > An arbitrary range is the same thing as less than a sector. :) Do you > > > > know of an instance where the range will not be sector-aligned and sized? > > > > > > > > > and carve out an aligned sub-range and pass that subrange to > > > > > nvdimm_clear_poison(). > > > > > > > > And what happens to the rest? The caller is left to trip over the > > > > errors? That sounds pretty terrible. I really think there needs to be > > > > an explicit contract here. > > > > > > Ok, I think is is the contentious bit. Current interface > > > (__dax_zero_page_range()) either clears the poison (if I/O is aligned to > > > sector) or expects page to be free of poison. > > > > > > So in above example, of "truncate -s 23 foo.txt", currently I get an error > > > because range being zeroed is not sector aligned. So > > > __dax_zero_page_range() falls back to calling direct_access(). Which > > > fails because there are poisoned sectors in the page. > > > > > > With my patches, dax_zero_page_range(), clears the poison from sector 1 to > > > 7 but leaves sector 0 untouched and just writes zeroes from byte 0 to 511 > > > and returns success. > > > > > > So question is, is this better behavior or worse behavior. If sector 0 > > > was poisoned, it will continue to remain poisoned and caller will come > > > to know about it on next read and then it should try to truncate file > > > to length 0 or unlink file or restore that file to get rid of poison. > > > > > > IOW, if a partial block is being zeroed and if it is poisoned, caller > > > will not be return an error and poison will not be cleared and memory > > > will be zeroed. What do we expect in such cases. > > > > > > Do we expect an interface where if there are any bad blocks in the range > > > being zeroed, then they all should be cleared (and hence all I/O should > > > be aligned) otherwise error is returned. If yes, I could make that > > > change. > > > > This does not strike me as a good idea because it's a false security > > compared to the latent poison case. If the writes to an unknown > > poisoned location would otherwise succeed via a different I/O path > > (dax), it's an unsymmetric surprise to start returning errors just > > because you wrote zeroes as a side effect of truncate. > > > > > Downside of current interface is that it will clear as many blocks as > > > possible in the given range and leave starting and end blocks poisoned > > > (if it is unaligned) and not return error. That means a reader will > > > get error on these blocks again and they will have to try to clear it > > > again. > > > > I think what you have described in your truncate example is an > > improvement on what we have currently because x86 does not communicate > > write errors. Specifically, writing zeros via dax from userspace over > > unknown poison behaves the same as writing unaligned zeros over known > > poison. In both cases it's a best effort that always succeeds (no cpu > > exception), and may inadvertently clear poison as a side-effect. > > Otherwise, an error-block-aligned hole punch is the only way to > > trigger the kernel to try to clear known poison when the full block is > > reallocated. > > Hi Dan, > > Agreed. This new interface works uniformly for both known poison and latent > poison cases. Existing interface is asymmetric and that means if poison is > latent, unaligned zero range will succeed but if poison is known, unaligned > zero range will fail. > > > > > On movdir64b capable cpus the error clearing unit becomes 64-bytes > > rather than 256-bytes because that allows a cacheline to be written > > without triggering a line fill read. So the error clearing granularity > > gets better over time, but unfortunately not synchronous detection in > > the I/O path. > > > > I think a better way to improve poison handling is the long standing > > idea to integrate the badblock tracking into the filesystem directly. > > That way driver notifications of poison can be ingested into the > > filesystem and notifications sent on filenames rather than the current > > TOCTOU mess of trying to do a reverse lookup of badblock numbers to > > files. If the application can efficiently list and be notified of > > poison it can mitigate it immediately rather than trying to rely on > > write side effects. > > Moving badblocks infrastructure in filesystem sounds like a major > rework which should be taken up in a seprate patch series in future. > > For now, can we please take these patches which are an improvement > over existing interface. Oh you misunderstood my comment, the "move badblocks to filesystem" proposal is long term / down the road thing to consider. In the near term this unaligned block zeroing facility is an improvement. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
