On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 9:26 PM Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 08, 2021 at 09:02:29PM +0000, Jane Chu wrote:
> > On 11/6/2021 9:48 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > On Fri, Nov 5, 2021 at 6:17 PM Jane Chu <jane.chu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Introduce DAX_OP_NORMAL and DAX_OP_RECOVERY operation modes to
> > >> {dax_direct_access, dax_copy_from_iter, dax_copy_to_iter}.
> > >> DAX_OP_NORMAL is the default or the existing mode, and
> > >> DAX_OP_RECOVERY is a new mode for data recovery purpose.
> > >>
> > >> When dax-FS suspects dax media error might be encountered
> > >> on a read or write, it can enact the recovery mode read or write
> > >> by setting DAX_OP_RECOVERY in the aforementioned APIs. A read
> > >> in recovery mode attempts to fetch as much data as possible
> > >> until the first poisoned page is encountered. A write in recovery
> > >> mode attempts to clear poison(s) in a page-aligned range and
> > >> then write the user provided data over.
> > >>
> > >> DAX_OP_NORMAL should be used for all non-recovery code path.
> > >>
> > >> Signed-off-by: Jane Chu <jane.chu@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > [..]
> > >> diff --git a/include/linux/dax.h b/include/linux/dax.h
> > >> index 324363b798ec..931586df2905 100644
> > >> --- a/include/linux/dax.h
> > >> +++ b/include/linux/dax.h
> > >> @@ -9,6 +9,10 @@
> > >> /* Flag for synchronous flush */
> > >> #define DAXDEV_F_SYNC (1UL << 0)
> > >>
> > >> +/* dax operation mode dynamically set by caller */
> > >> +#define DAX_OP_NORMAL 0
> > >
> > > Perhaps this should be called DAX_OP_FAILFAST?
> >
> > Sure.
> >
> > >
> > >> +#define DAX_OP_RECOVERY 1
> > >> +
> > >> typedef unsigned long dax_entry_t;
> > >>
> > >> struct dax_device;
> > >> @@ -22,8 +26,8 @@ struct dax_operations {
> > >> * logical-page-offset into an absolute physical pfn. Return the
> > >> * number of pages available for DAX at that pfn.
> > >> */
> > >> - long (*direct_access)(struct dax_device *, pgoff_t, long,
> > >> - void **, pfn_t *);
> > >> + long (*direct_access)(struct dax_device *, pgoff_t, long, int,
> > >
> > > Would be nice if that 'int' was an enum, but I'm not sure a new
> > > parameter is needed at all, see below...
> >
> > Let's do your suggestion below. :)
> >
> > >
> > >> + void **, pfn_t *);
> > >> /*
> > >> * Validate whether this device is usable as an fsdax backing
> > >> * device.
> > >> @@ -32,10 +36,10 @@ struct dax_operations {
> > >> sector_t, sector_t);
> > >> /* copy_from_iter: required operation for fs-dax direct-i/o */
> > >> size_t (*copy_from_iter)(struct dax_device *, pgoff_t, void *, size_t,
> > >> - struct iov_iter *);
> > >> + struct iov_iter *, int);
> > >
> > > I'm not sure the flag is needed here as the "void *" could carry a
> > > flag in the pointer to indicate that is a recovery kaddr.
> >
> > Agreed.
>
> Not sure if this is implied but I would like some macros or other helper
> functions to check these flags hidden in the addresses.
>
> For me I'm a bit scared about having flags hidden in the address like this
> because I can't lead to some confusions IMO.
>
> But if we have some macros or other calls which can make this more obvious of
> what is going on I think that would help.
You could go further and mark it as an 'unsigned long __bitwise' type
to get the compiler to help with enforcing accessors to strip off the
flag bits.
--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
