On 08/11/2015 07:51 PM, Wilcox, Matthew R wrote: > The race that you're not seeing is page fault vs page fault. Two > threads each attempt to store a byte to different locations on the > same page. With a read-mutex to exclude truncates, each thread calls > ->get_block. One of the threads gets back a buffer marked as BH_New > and calls memset() to clear the page. The other thread gets back a > buffer which isn't marked as BH_New and simply inserts the mapping, > returning to userspace, which stores the byte ... just in time for > the other thread's memset() to write a zero over the top of it. > So I guess all you need is to zero it at the FS allocator like a __GFP_ZERO Perhaps you invent a new flag to pass to ->get_block() like a __GB_FOR_MMAP that will make the FS zero the block in the case it was newly allocated. Sure there is some locking going on inside the FS so to not allocate two blocks for the same inode offset. Then memset_nt() inside or before that lock. ie. In the presence of __GB_FOR_MMAP the FS will internally convert any BH_New to a memset_nt() and regular return. > Oh, and if it's a load racing against a store, you could read data > that used to be in this block the last time it was used; maybe the > contents of /etc/shadow. > Do you have any kind of test like this? I wish we could exercise this and see that we actually solved it. > So if we want to be able to handle more than one page fault at a time > per file (... and I think we do ...), we need to have exclusive > access to a range of the file while we're calling ->get_block(), and > for a certain amount of time afterwards. With non-DAX files, this is > the page lock. My original proposal for solving this was to enhance > the page cache radix tree to be able to lock something other than a > page, but that also has complexities. > Yes this could be done with a bit-lock at the RADIX_TREE_EXCEPTIONAL_ENTRY bits of a radix_tree_exception() entry. These are only used by shmem radix-trees and will never conflict with DAX But it means you will need to populate the radix-tree with radix_tree_exception() entries for every block accessed which will be a great pity. I still think the above extra flag to ->get_block() taps into filesystem already existing infra, and will cost much less pain. (And is much more efficient say in hot path like application already did fallocate for performance) Thanks Boaz > -----Original Message----- > From: Boaz Harrosh [mailto:boaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 7:31 AM > To: Jan Kara; Dave Chinner > Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov; Andrew Morton; Wilcox, Matthew R; linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Davidlohr Bueso > Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC 2/2] dax: use range_lock instead of i_mmap_lock > > On 08/11/2015 04:50 PM, Jan Kara wrote: >> On Tue 11-08-15 19:37:08, Dave Chinner wrote: >>>>> The patch below tries to recover some scalability for DAX by introducing >>>>> per-mapping range lock. >>>> >>>> So this grows noticeably (3 longs if I'm right) struct address_space and >>>> thus struct inode just for DAX. That looks like a waste but I don't see an >>>> easy solution. >>>> >>>> OTOH filesystems in normal mode might want to use the range lock as well to >>>> provide truncate / punch hole vs page fault exclusion (XFS already has a >>>> private rwsem for this and ext4 needs something as well) and at that point >>>> growing generic struct inode would be acceptable for me. >>> >>> It sounds to me like the way DAX has tried to solve this race is the >>> wrong direction. We really need to drive the truncate/page fault >>> serialisation higher up the stack towards the filesystem, not deeper >>> into the mm subsystem where locking is greatly limited. >>> >>> As Jan mentions, we already have this serialisation in XFS, and I >>> think it would be better first step to replicate that locking model >>> in each filesystem that is supports DAX. I think this is a better >>> direction because it moves towards solving a whole class of problems >>> fileystem face with page fault serialisation, not just for DAX. >> >> Well, but at least in XFS you take XFS_MMAPLOCK in shared mode for the >> fault / page_mkwrite callback so it doesn't provide the exclusion necessary >> for DAX which needs exclusive access to the page given range in the page >> cache. And replacing i_mmap_lock with fs-private mmap rwsem is a moot >> excercise (at least from DAX POV). >> > > Hi Jan. So you got me confused above. You say: > "DAX which needs exclusive access to the page given range in the page cache" > > but DAX and page-cache are mutually exclusive. I guess you meant the VMA > range, or the inode->mapping range (which one is it) > > Actually I do not understand this race you guys found at all. (Please bear with > me sorry for being slow) > > If two threads of the same VMA fault on the same pte > (I'm not sure how you call it I mean a single 4k entry at each VMAs page-table) > then the mm knows how to handle this just fine. > > If two processes, ie two VMAs fault on the same inode->mapping. Then an inode > wide lock like XFS's to protect against i_size-change / truncate is more than > enough. > Because with DAX there is no inode->mapping "mapping" at all. You have the call > into the FS with get_block() to replace "holes" (zero pages) with real allocated > blocks, on WRITE faults, but this conversion should be protected inside the FS > already. Then there is the atomic exchange of the PTE which is fine. > (And vis versa with holes mapping and writes) > > There is no global "mapping" radix-tree shared between VMAs like we are > used to. > > Please explain to me the races you are seeing. I would love to also see them > with xfs. I think there they should not happen. > >> So regardless whether the lock will be a fs-private one or in >> address_space, DAX needs something like the range lock Kirill suggested. >> Having the range lock in fs-private part of inode has the advantage that >> only filesystems supporting DAX / punch hole will pay the memory overhead. >> OTOH most major filesystems need it so the savings would be IMO noticeable > > punch-hole is truncate for me. With the xfs model of read-write lock where > truncate takes write, any fault taking read before executing the fault looks > good for the FS side of things. I guess you mean the optimization of the > radix-tree lock. But you see DAX does not have a radix-tree, ie it is empty. > > Please explain. Do you have a reproducer of this race. I would need to understand > this. > > Thanks > Boaz > >> only for tiny systems using special fs etc. So I'm undecided whether >> putting the lock in address_space and doing the locking in generic >> pagefault / truncate helpers is a better choice or not. >> >> Honza >> > -- 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>