On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 11:32 AM Jerome Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 10:41:23AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 8:54 AM <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > This add support to mirror vma which is an mmap of a file which is on > > > a filesystem that using a DAX block device. There is no reason not to > > > support that case. > > > > > > > The reason not to support it would be if it gets in the way of future > > DAX development. How does this interact with MAP_SYNC? I'm also > > concerned if this complicates DAX reflink support. In general I'd > > rather prioritize fixing the places where DAX is broken today before > > adding more cross-subsystem entanglements. The unit tests for > > filesystems (xfstests) are readily accessible. How would I go about > > regression testing DAX + HMM interactions? > > HMM mirror CPU page table so anything you do to CPU page table will > be reflected to all HMM mirror user. So MAP_SYNC has no bearing here > whatsoever as all HMM mirror user must do cache coherent access to > range they mirror so from DAX point of view this is just _exactly_ > the same as CPU access. > > Note that you can not migrate DAX memory to GPU memory and thus for a > mmap of a file on a filesystem that use a DAX block device then you can > not do migration to device memory. Also at this time migration of file > back page is only supported for cache coherent device memory so for > instance on OpenCAPI platform. Ok, this addresses the primary concern about maintenance burden. Thanks. However the changelog still amounts to a justification of "change this, because we can". At least, that's how it reads to me. Is there any positive benefit to merging this patch? Can you spell that out in the changelog? > Bottom line is you just have to worry about the CPU page table. What > ever you do there will be reflected properly. It does not add any > burden to people working on DAX. Unless you want to modify CPU page > table without calling mmu notifier but in that case you would not > only break HMM mirror user but other thing like KVM ... > > > For testing the issue is what do you want to test ? Do you want to test > that a device properly mirror some mmap of a file back by DAX ? ie > device driver which use HMM mirror keep working after changes made to > DAX. > > Or do you want to run filesystem test suite using the GPU to access > mmap of the file (read or write) instead of the CPU ? In that case any > such test suite would need to be updated to be able to use something > like OpenCL for. At this time i do not see much need for that but maybe > this is something people would like to see. In general, as HMM grows intercept points throughout the mm it would be helpful to be able to sanity check the implementation.
