AFAIK Solaris 11 uses a sparse tree instead of a array. Solves the scalability problem AND deals with variable page size. Ced On 10 February 2016 at 23:09, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:32:49AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: >> On Tue 09-02-16 10:18:53, Dan Williams wrote: >> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > Hello, >> > > >> > > I was thinking about current issues with DAX fault locking [1] (data >> > > corruption due to racing faults allocating blocks) and also races which >> > > currently don't allow us to clear dirty tags in the radix tree due to races >> > > between faults and cache flushing [2]. Both of these exist because we don't >> > > have an equivalent of page lock available for DAX. While we have a >> > > reasonable solution available for problem [1], so far I'm not aware of a >> > > decent solution for [2]. After briefly discussing the issue with Mel he had >> > > a bright idea that we could used hashed locks to deal with [2] (and I think >> > > we can solve [1] with them as well). So my proposal looks as follows: >> > > >> > > DAX will have an array of mutexes (the array can be made per device but >> > > initially a global one should be OK). We will use mutexes in the array as a >> > > replacement for page lock - we will use hashfn(mapping, index) to get >> > > particular mutex protecting our offset in the mapping. On fault / page >> > > mkwrite, we'll grab the mutex similarly to page lock and release it once we >> > > are done updating page tables. This deals with races in [1]. When flushing >> > > caches we grab the mutex before clearing writeable bit in page tables >> > > and clearing dirty bit in the radix tree and drop it after we have flushed >> > > caches for the pfn. This deals with races in [2]. >> > > >> > > Thoughts? >> > > >> > >> > I like the fact that this makes the locking explicit and >> > straightforward rather than something more tricky. Can we make the >> > hashfn pfn based? I'm thinking we could later reuse this as part of >> > the solution for eliminating the need to allocate struct page, and we >> > don't have the 'mapping' available in all paths... >> >> So Mel originally suggested to use pfn for hashing as well. My concern with >> using pfn is that e.g. if you want to fill a hole, you don't have a pfn to >> lock. What you really need to protect is a logical offset in the file to >> serialize allocation of underlying blocks, its mapping into page tables, >> and flushing the blocks out of caches. So using inode/mapping and offset >> for the hashing is easier (it isn't obvious to me we can fix hole filling >> races with pfn-based locking). > > So how does that file+offset hash work when trying to lock different > ranges? file+offset hashing to determine the lock to use only works > if we are dealing with fixed size ranges that the locks affect. > e.g. offset has 4k granularity for a single page faults, but we also > need to handle 2MB granularity for huge page faults, and IIRC 1GB > granularity for giant page faults... > > What's the plan here? > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Cedric Blancher <cedric.blancher@xxxxxxxxx> Institute Pasteur -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>