On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 09:26:59AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 26-04-17 16:52:36, Ross Zwisler wrote: <> > > I don't think this alone is enough to save us. The I/O path doesn't currently > > take any DAX radix tree entry locks, so our race would just become: > > > > CPU1 - write(2) CPU2 - read fault > > > > dax_iomap_pte_fault() > > grab_mapping_entry() // newly moved > > ->iomap_begin() - sees hole > > dax_iomap_rw() > > iomap_apply() > > ->iomap_begin - allocates blocks > > dax_iomap_actor() > > invalidate_inode_pages2_range() > > - there's nothing to invalidate > > - we add zero page in the radix > > tree & map it to page tables > > > > In their current form I don't think we want to take DAX radix tree entry locks > > in the I/O path because that would effectively serialize I/O over a given > > radix tree entry. For a 2MiB entry, for example, all I/O to that 2MiB range > > would be serialized. > > Note that invalidate_inode_pages2_range() will see the entry created by > grab_mapping_entry() on CPU2 and block waiting for its lock and this is > exactly what stops the race. The invalidate_inode_pages2_range() > effectively makes sure there isn't any page fault in progress for given > range... Yep, this is the bit that I was missing. Thanks. > Also note that writes to a file are serialized by i_rwsem anyway (and at > least serialization of writes to the overlapping range is required by POSIX) > so this doesn't add any more serialization than we already have. > > > > Another solution would be to grab i_mmap_sem for write when doing write > > > fault of a page and similarly have it grabbed for writing when doing > > > write(2). This would scale rather poorly but if we later replaced it with a > > > range lock (Davidlohr has already posted a nice implementation of it) it > > > won't be as bad. But I guess option 1) is better... > > > > The best idea I had for handling this sounds similar, which would be to > > convert the radix tree locks to essentially be reader/writer locks. I/O and > > faults that don't modify the block mapping could just take read-level locks, > > and could all run concurrently. I/O or faults that modify a block mapping > > would take a write lock, and serialize with other writers and readers. > > Well, this would be difficult to implement inside the radix tree (not > enough bits in the entry) so you'd have to go for some external locking > primitive anyway. And if you do that, read-write range lock Davidlohr has > implemented is what you describe - well we could also have a radix tree > with rwsems but I suspect the overhead of maintaining that would be too > large. It would require larger rewrite than reusing entry locks as I > suggest above though and it isn't an obvious performance win for realistic > workloads either so I'd like to see some performance numbers before going > that way. It likely improves a situation where processes race to fault the > same page for which we already know the block mapping but I'm not sure if > that translates to any measurable performance wins for workloads on DAX > filesystem. > > > You could know if you needed a write lock without asking the filesystem - if > > you're a write and the radix tree entry is empty or is for a zero page, you > > grab the write lock. > > > > This dovetails nicely with the idea of having the radix tree act as a cache > > for block mappings. You take the appropriate lock on the radix tree entry, > > and it has the block mapping info for your I/O or fault so you don't have to > > call into the FS. I/O would also participate so we would keep info about > > block mappings that we gather from I/O to help shortcut our page faults. > > > > How does this sound vs the range lock idea? How hard do you think it would be > > to convert our current wait queue system to reader/writer style locking? > > > > Also, how do you think we should deal with the current PMD corruption? Should > > we go with the current fix (I can augment the comments as you suggested), and > > then handle optimizations to that approach and the solution to this larger > > race as a follow-on? > > So for now I'm still more inclined to just stay with the radix tree lock as > is and just fix up the locking as I suggest and go for larger rewrite only > if we can demonstrate further performance wins. Sounds good. > WRT your second patch, if we go with the locking as I suggest, it is enough > to unmap the whole range after invalidate_inode_pages2() has cleared radix > tree entries (*) which will be much cheaper (for large writes) than doing > unmapping entry by entry. I'm still not convinced that it is safe to do the unmap in a separate step. I see your point about it being expensive to do a rmap walk to unmap each entry in __dax_invalidate_mapping_entry(), but I think we might need to because the unmap is part of the contract imposed by invalidate_inode_pages2_range() and invalidate_inode_pages2(). This exists in the header comment above each: * Any pages which are found to be mapped into pagetables are unmapped prior * to invalidation. If you look at the usage of invalidate_inode_pages2_range() in generic_file_direct_write() for example (which I realize we won't call for a DAX inode, but still), I think that it really does rely on the fact that invalidated pages are unmapped, right? If it didn't, and hole pages were mapped, the hole pages could remain mapped while a direct I/O write allocated blocks and then wrote real data. If we really want to unmap the entire range at once, maybe it would have to be done in invalidate_inode_pages2_range(), after the loop? My hesitation about this is that we'd be leaking yet more DAX special casing up into the mm/truncate.c code. Or am I missing something? > So I'd go for that. I'll prepare a patch for the > locking change - it will require changes to ext4 transaction handling so it > won't be completely trivial. > > (*) The flow of information is: filesystem block mapping info -> radix tree > -> page tables so if 'filesystem block mapping info' changes, we should go > invalidate corresponding radix tree entries (new entries will already have > uptodate info) and then invalidate corresponding page tables (again once > radix tree has no stale entries, we are sure new page table entries will be > uptodate). > > Honza > -- > Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> > SUSE Labs, CR -- 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>
