On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 5:37 AM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 01:32:58PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > [..] > > > > > Ok, how about if I add one more patch to the series which will check > > > > > if unwritten portion of the page has known poison. If it has, then > > > > > -EIO is returned. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: pmem: zero page range return error if poisoned memory in unwritten area > > > > > > > > > > Filesystems call into pmem_dax_zero_page_range() to zero partial page upon > > > > > truncate. If partial page is being zeroed, then at the end of operation > > > > > file systems expect that there is no poison in the whole page (atleast > > > > > known poison). > > > > > > > > > > So make sure part of the partial page which is not being written, does not > > > > > have poison. If it does, return error. If there is poison in area of page > > > > > being written, it will be cleared. > > > > > > > > No, I don't like that the zero operation is special cased compared to > > > > the write case. I'd say let's make them identical for now. I.e. fail > > > > the I/O at dax_direct_access() time. > > > > > > So basically __dax_zero_page_range() will only write zeros (and not > > > try to clear any poison). Right? > > > > Yes, the zero operation would have already failed at the > > dax_direct_access() step if there was present poison. > > > > > > I think the error clearing > > > > interface should be an explicit / separate op rather than a > > > > side-effect. What about an explicit interface for initializing newly > > > > allocated blocks, and the only reliable way to destroy poison through > > > > the filesystem is to free the block? > > > > > > Effectively pmem_make_request() is already that interface filesystems > > > use to initialize blocks and clear poison. So we don't really have to > > > introduce a new interface? > > > > pmem_make_request() is shared with the I/O path and is too low in the > > stack to understand intent. DAX intercepts the I/O path closer to the > > filesystem and can understand zeroing vs writing today. I'm proposing > > we go a step further and make DAX understand free-to-allocated-block > > initialization instead of just zeroing. Inject the error clearing into > > that initialization interface. > > > > > Or you are suggesting separate dax_zero_page_range() interface which will > > > always call into firmware to clear poison. And that will make sure latent > > > poison is cleared as well and filesystem should use that for block > > > initialization instead? > > > > Yes, except latent poison would not be cleared until the zeroing is > > implemented with movdir64b instead of callouts to firmware. It's > > otherwise too slow to call out to firmware unconditionally. > > > > > I do like the idea of not having to differentiate > > > between known poison and latent poison. Once a block has been initialized > > > all poison should be cleared (known/latent). I am worried though that > > > on large devices this might slowdown filesystem initialization a lot > > > if they are zeroing large range of blocks. > > > > > > If yes, this sounds like two different patch series. First patch series > > > takes care of removing blkdev_issue_zeroout() from > > > __dax_zero_page_range() and couple of iomap related cleans christoph > > > wanted. > > > > > > And second patch series for adding new dax operation to zero a range > > > and always call info firmware to clear poison and modify filesystems > > > accordingly. > > > > Yes, but they may need to be merged together. I don't want to regress > > the ability of a block-aligned hole-punch to clear errors. > > Hi Dan, > > IIUC, block aligned hole punch don't go through __dax_zero_page_range() > path. Instead they call blkdev_issue_zeroout() at later point of time. > > Only partial block zeroing path is taking __dax_zero_page_range(). So > even if we remove poison clearing code from __dax_zero_page_range(), > there should not be a regression w.r.t full block zeroing. Only possible > regression will be if somebody was doing partial block zeroing on sector > boundary, then poison will not be cleared. > > We now seem to be discussing too many issues w.r.t poison clearing > and dax. Atleast 3 issues are mentioned in this thread. > > A. Get rid of dependency on block device in dax zeroing path. > (__dax_zero_page_range) > > B. Provide a way to clear latent poison. And possibly use movdir64b to > do that and make filesystems use that interface for initialization > of blocks. > > C. Dax zero operation is clearing known poison while copy_from_iter() is > not. I guess this ship has already sailed. If we change it now, > somebody will complain of some regression. > > For issue A, there are two possible ways to deal with it. > > 1. Implement a dax method to zero page. And this method will also clear > known poison. This is what my patch series is doing. > > 2. Just get rid of blkdev_issue_zeroout() from __dax_zero_page_range() > so that no poison will be cleared in __dax_zero_page_range() path. This > path is currently used in partial page zeroing path and full filesystem > block zeroing happens with blkdev_issue_zeroout(). There is a small > chance of regression here in case of sector aligned partial block > zeroing. > > My patch series takes care of issue A without any regressions. In fact it > improves current interface. For example, currently "truncate -s 512 > foo.txt" will succeed even if first sector in the block is poisoned. My > patch series fixes it. Current implementation will return error on if any > non sector aligned truncate is done and any of the sector is poisoned. My > implementation will not return error if poisoned can be cleared as part > of zeroing. It will return only if poison is present in non-zeoring part. That asymmetry makes the implementation too much of a special case. If the dax mapping path forces error boundaries on PAGE_SIZE blocks then so should zeroing. > > Why don't we solve one issue A now and deal with issue B and C later in > a sepaprate patch series. This patch series gets rid of dependency on > block device in dax path and also makes current zeroing interface better. I'm ok with replacing blkdev_issue_zeroout() with a dax operation callback that deals with page aligned entries. That change at least makes the error boundary symmetric across copy_from_iter() and the zeroing path. -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
