On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 01:31:45PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 12:19:50PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > >> The application does not need to know the storage address, it needs to > >> know that the storage address to file offset is fixed. With this > >> information it can make assumptions about the permanence of results it > >> gets from the kernel. > > > > Only if we clearly document that fact - and documenting the permanence > > is different from saying the block map won't change. > > I can get on board with that. > > > > >> For example get_user_pages() today makes no guarantees outside of > >> "page will not be freed", > > > > It also makes the extremely important gurantee that the page won't > > _move_ - e.g. that we won't do a memory migration for compaction or > > other reasons. That's why for example RDMA can use to register > > memory and then we can later set up memory windows that point to this > > registration from userspace and implement userspace RDMA. > > > >> but with immutable files and dax you now > >> have a mechanism for userspace to coordinate direct access to storage > >> addresses. Those raw storage addresses need not be exposed to the > >> application, as you say it doesn't need to know that detail. MAP_SYNC > >> does not fully satisfy this case because it requires agents that can > >> generate MMU faults to coordinate with the filesystem. > > > > The file system is always in the fault path, can you explain what other > > agents you are talking about? > > Exactly the one's you mention below. SVM hardware can just use a > MAP_SYNC mapping and be sure that its metadata dirtying writes are > synchronized with the filesystem through the fault path. Hardware that > does not have SVM, or hypervisors like Xen that want to attach their > own static metadata about the file offset to physical block mapping, > need a mechanism to make sure the block map is sealed while they have > it mapped. > > >> All I know is that SMB Direct for persistent memory seems like a > >> potential consumer. I know they're not going to use a userspace > >> filesystem or put an SMB server in the kernel. > > > > Last I talked to the Samba folks they didn't expect a userspace > > SMB direct implementation to work anyway due to the fact that > > libibverbs memory registrations interact badly with their fork()ing > > daemon model. That being said during the recent submission of the > > RDMA client code some comments were made about userspace versions of > > it, so I'm not sure if that opinion has changed in one way or another. > > Ok. > > > > > Thay being said I think we absolutely should support RDMA memory > > registrations for DAX mappings. I'm just not sure how S_IOMAP_IMMUTABLE > > helps with that. We'll want a MAP_SYNC | MAP_POPULATE to make sure > > all the blocks are polulated and all ptes are set up. Second we need > > to make sure get_user_page works, which for now means we'll need a > > struct page mapping for the region (which will be really annoying > > for PCIe mappings, like the upcoming NVMe persistent memory region), > > and we need to gurantee that the extent mapping won't change while > > the get_user_pages holds the pages inside it. I think that is true > > due to side effects even with the current DAX code, but we'll need to > > make it explicit. And maybe that's where we need to converge - > > "sealing" the extent map makes sense as such a temporary measure > > that is not persisted on disk, which automatically gets released > > when the holding process exits, because we sort of already do this > > implicitly. It might also make sense to have explicitl breakable > > seals similar to what I do for the pNFS blocks kernel server, as > > any userspace RDMA file server would also need those semantics. > > Ok, how about a MAP_DIRECT flag that arranges for faults to that range to: > > 1/ only succeed if the fault can be satisfied without page cache > > 2/ only install a pte for the fault if it can do so without > triggering block map updates > > So, I think it would still end up setting an inode flag to make > xfs_bmapi_write() fail while any process has a MAP_DIRECT mapping > active. However, it would not record that state in the on-disk > metadata and it would automatically clear at munmap time. That should TBH even after the last round of 'do we need this on-disk flag?' I still wasn't 100% convinced that we really needed a permanent flag vs. requiring apps to ask for a sealed iomap mmap like what you just described, so I'm glad this converation has continue. :) --D > be enough to support the host-persistent-memory, and > NVMe-persistent-memory use cases (provided we have struct page for > NVMe). Although, we need more safety infrastructure in the NVMe case > where we would need to software manage I/O coherence. > > > Last but not least we have any interesting additional case for modern > > Mellanox hardware - On Demand Paging where we don't actually do a > > get_user_pages but the hardware implements SVM and thus gets fed > > virtual addresses directly. My head spins when talking about the > > implications for DAX mappings on that, so I'm just throwing that in > > for now instead of trying to come up with a solution. > > Yeah, DAX + SVM needs more thought. > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
