From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=dEyk=4N=lists.01.org=linux-nvdimm-bounces@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,
	URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39801C35E01
	for <linux-nvdimm@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 20:08:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ml01.01.org (ml01.01.org [198.145.21.10])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05C7A20CC7
	for <linux-nvdimm@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 20:08:37 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org;
	dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="KR4cvySE"
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 05C7A20CC7
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org
Received: from ml01.vlan13.01.org (localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6FD210FC36C2;
	Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:09:29 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=205.139.110.61; helo=us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com; envelope-from=vgoyal@redhat.com; receiver=<UNKNOWN> 
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E8C010FC35BE
	for <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 12:09:26 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com;
	s=mimecast20190719; t=1582661313;
	h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
	 to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
	 in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
	bh=kmErMkzp02Oq0AqML4SKhQ/+5fqPKtI4uzTiDDsGXBU=;
	b=KR4cvySE7LPFTGK5hsy4KbnlyHmu4eq7Iv6g9gKot0Lb7TFeFQ6kvDZUCMKNP+J5hpP8gY
	BgztwyvmLMOxkLOtoQ45ankERzJH/zJDzlXywNBmN0KencjaRQExQ5n/07T9gx8+vEhC+W
	qiQS9qrgVTK26uoOihdAwzOZRDR0R7w=
Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com
 [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id
 us-mta-74-BxXoMsUMO0eopAJcG6sBOw-1; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:08:29 -0500
X-MC-Unique: BxXoMsUMO0eopAJcG6sBOw-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22])
	(using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1867A800D53;
	Tue, 25 Feb 2020 20:08:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from horse.redhat.com (unknown [10.18.25.35])
	by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C121001B2C;
	Tue, 25 Feb 2020 20:08:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by horse.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 10451)
	id D471F2257D2; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:08:24 -0500 (EST)
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:08:24 -0500
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/8] drivers/pmem: Allow pmem_clear_poison() to accept
 arbitrary offset and len
Message-ID: <20200225200824.GB7488@redhat.com>
References: <20200220215707.GC10816@redhat.com>
 <x498skv3i5r.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
 <20200221201759.GF25974@redhat.com>
 <20200223230330.GE10737@dread.disaster.area>
 <20200224201346.GC14651@redhat.com>
 <CAPcyv4gGrimesjZ=OKRaYTDd5dUVz+U9aPeBMh_H3_YCz4FOEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200224211553.GD14651@redhat.com>
 <CAPcyv4gX8p0YuMg3=r9DtPAO3Lz-96nuNyXbK1X5-cyVzNrDTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200225133653.GA7488@redhat.com>
 <CAPcyv4h2fdo=-jqLPTqnuxYVMbBgODWPqafH35yBMBaPa5Rxcw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4h2fdo=-jqLPTqnuxYVMbBgODWPqafH35yBMBaPa5Rxcw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22
Message-ID-Hash: K6LT2RYWJ2DLYWNVGAHAYGKRAFW6KVDX
X-Message-ID-Hash: K6LT2RYWJ2DLYWNVGAHAYGKRAFW6KVDX
X-MailFrom: vgoyal@redhat.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; suspicious-header
CC: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
X-Mailman-Version: 3.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Linux-nvdimm developer list." <linux-nvdimm.lists.01.org>
Archived-At: <https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org/message/K6LT2RYWJ2DLYWNVGAHAYGKRAFW6KVDX/>
List-Archive: <https://lists.01.org/hyperkitty/list/linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org/>
List-Help: <mailto:linux-nvdimm-request@lists.01.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:linux-nvdimm-join@lists.01.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:linux-nvdimm-leave@lists.01.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 08:25:27AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 5:37 AM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 01:32:58PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> > > > > > Ok, how about if I add one more patch to the series which will check
> > > > > > if unwritten portion of the page has known poison. If it has, then
> > > > > > -EIO is returned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Subject: pmem: zero page range return error if poisoned memory in unwritten area
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Filesystems call into pmem_dax_zero_page_range() to zero partial page upon
> > > > > > truncate. If partial page is being zeroed, then at the end of operation
> > > > > > file systems expect that there is no poison in the whole page (atleast
> > > > > > known poison).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So make sure part of the partial page which is not being written, does not
> > > > > > have poison. If it does, return error. If there is poison in area of page
> > > > > > being written, it will be cleared.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I don't like that the zero operation is special cased compared to
> > > > > the write case. I'd say let's make them identical for now. I.e. fail
> > > > > the I/O at dax_direct_access() time.
> > > >
> > > > So basically __dax_zero_page_range() will only write zeros (and not
> > > > try to clear any poison). Right?
> > >
> > > Yes, the zero operation would have already failed at the
> > > dax_direct_access() step if there was present poison.
> > >
> > > > > I think the error clearing
> > > > > interface should be an explicit / separate op rather than a
> > > > > side-effect. What about an explicit interface for initializing newly
> > > > > allocated blocks, and the only reliable way to destroy poison through
> > > > > the filesystem is to free the block?
> > > >
> > > > Effectively pmem_make_request() is already that interface filesystems
> > > > use to initialize blocks and clear poison. So we don't really have to
> > > > introduce a new interface?
> > >
> > > pmem_make_request() is shared with the I/O path and is too low in the
> > > stack to understand intent. DAX intercepts the I/O path closer to the
> > > filesystem and can understand zeroing vs writing today. I'm proposing
> > > we go a step further and make DAX understand free-to-allocated-block
> > > initialization instead of just zeroing. Inject the error clearing into
> > > that initialization interface.
> > >
> > > > Or you are suggesting separate dax_zero_page_range() interface which will
> > > > always call into firmware to clear poison. And that will make sure latent
> > > > poison is cleared as well and filesystem should use that for block
> > > > initialization instead?
> > >
> > > Yes, except latent poison would not be cleared until the zeroing is
> > > implemented with movdir64b instead of callouts to firmware. It's
> > > otherwise too slow to call out to firmware unconditionally.
> > >
> > > > I do like the idea of not having to differentiate
> > > > between known poison and latent poison. Once a block has been initialized
> > > > all poison should be cleared (known/latent). I am worried though that
> > > > on large devices this might slowdown filesystem initialization a lot
> > > > if they are zeroing large range of blocks.
> > > >
> > > > If yes, this sounds like two different patch series. First patch series
> > > > takes care of removing blkdev_issue_zeroout() from
> > > > __dax_zero_page_range() and couple of iomap related cleans christoph
> > > > wanted.
> > > >
> > > > And second patch series for adding new dax operation to zero a range
> > > > and always call info firmware to clear poison and modify filesystems
> > > > accordingly.
> > >
> > > Yes, but they may need to be merged together. I don't want to regress
> > > the ability of a block-aligned hole-punch to clear errors.
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > IIUC, block aligned hole punch don't go through __dax_zero_page_range()
> > path. Instead they call blkdev_issue_zeroout() at later point of time.
> >
> > Only partial block zeroing path is taking __dax_zero_page_range(). So
> > even if we remove poison clearing code from __dax_zero_page_range(),
> > there should not be a regression w.r.t full block zeroing. Only possible
> > regression will be if somebody was doing partial block zeroing on sector
> > boundary, then poison will not be cleared.
> >
> > We now seem to be discussing too many issues w.r.t poison clearing
> > and dax. Atleast 3 issues are mentioned in this thread.
> >
> > A. Get rid of dependency on block device in dax zeroing path.
> >    (__dax_zero_page_range)
> >
> > B. Provide a way to clear latent poison. And possibly use movdir64b to
> >    do that and make filesystems use that interface for initialization
> >    of blocks.
> >
> > C. Dax zero operation is clearing known poison while copy_from_iter() is
> >    not. I guess this ship has already sailed. If we change it now,
> >    somebody will complain of some regression.
> >
> > For issue A, there are two possible ways to deal with it.
> >
> > 1. Implement a dax method to zero page. And this method will also clear
> >    known poison. This is what my patch series is doing.
> >
> > 2. Just get rid of blkdev_issue_zeroout() from __dax_zero_page_range()
> >    so that no poison will be cleared in __dax_zero_page_range() path. This
> >    path is currently used in partial page zeroing path and full filesystem
> >    block zeroing happens with blkdev_issue_zeroout(). There is a small
> >    chance of regression here in case of sector aligned partial block
> >    zeroing.
> >
> > My patch series takes care of issue A without any regressions. In fact it
> > improves current interface. For example, currently "truncate -s 512
> > foo.txt" will succeed even if first sector in the block is poisoned. My
> > patch series fixes it. Current implementation will return error on if any
> > non sector aligned truncate is done and any of the sector is poisoned. My
> > implementation will not return error if poisoned can be cleared as part
> > of zeroing. It will return only if poison is present in non-zeoring part.
> 
> That asymmetry makes the implementation too much of a special case. If
> the dax mapping path forces error boundaries on PAGE_SIZE blocks then
> so should zeroing.
> 
> >
> > Why don't we solve one issue A now and deal with issue B and C later in
> > a sepaprate patch series. This patch series gets rid of dependency on
> > block device in dax path and also makes current zeroing interface better.
> 
> I'm ok with replacing blkdev_issue_zeroout() with a dax operation
> callback that deals with page aligned entries. That change at least
> makes the error boundary symmetric across copy_from_iter() and the
> zeroing path.

IIUC, you are suggesting that modify dax_zero_page_range() to take page
aligned start and size and call this interface from
__dax_zero_page_range() and get rid of blkdev_issue_zeroout() in that
path?

Something like.

__dax_zero_page_range() {
  if(page_aligned_io)
  	call_dax_page_zero_range()
  else
   	use_direct_access_and_memcpy;
}

And other callers of blkdev_issue_zeroout() in filesystems can migrate
to calling dax_zero_page_range() instead.

If yes, I am not seeing what advantage do we get by this change.

- __dax_zero_page_range() seems to be called by only partial block
  zeroing code. So dax_zero_page_range() call will remain unused.

- dax_zero_page_range() will be exact replacement of
  blkdev_issue_zeroout() so filesystems will not gain anything. Just that
  it will create a dax specific hook.

In that case it might be simpler to just get rid of blkdev_issue_zeroout()
call from __dax_zero_page_range() and make sure there are no callers of
full block zeroing from this path.

Thanks
Vivek
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-leave@lists.01.org

From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=JNcI=4N=vger.kernel.org=linux-fsdevel-owner@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,
	DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EADBC35E01
	for <linux-fsdevel@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 20:08:36 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5988F20CC7
	for <linux-fsdevel@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 20:08:36 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org;
	dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="KR4cvySE"
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1731012AbgBYUIf (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@archiver.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:08:35 -0500
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([205.139.110.120]:50652 "EHLO
        us-smtp-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1730961AbgBYUIf (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:08:35 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com;
        s=mimecast20190719; t=1582661313;
        h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id:
         to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type:
         in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references;
        bh=kmErMkzp02Oq0AqML4SKhQ/+5fqPKtI4uzTiDDsGXBU=;
        b=KR4cvySE7LPFTGK5hsy4KbnlyHmu4eq7Iv6g9gKot0Lb7TFeFQ6kvDZUCMKNP+J5hpP8gY
        BgztwyvmLMOxkLOtoQ45ankERzJH/zJDzlXywNBmN0KencjaRQExQ5n/07T9gx8+vEhC+W
        qiQS9qrgVTK26uoOihdAwzOZRDR0R7w=
Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com
 [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id
 us-mta-74-BxXoMsUMO0eopAJcG6sBOw-1; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:08:29 -0500
X-MC-Unique: BxXoMsUMO0eopAJcG6sBOw-1
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22])
        (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
        (No client certificate requested)
        by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1867A800D53;
        Tue, 25 Feb 2020 20:08:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from horse.redhat.com (unknown [10.18.25.35])
        by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58C121001B2C;
        Tue, 25 Feb 2020 20:08:25 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by horse.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 10451)
        id D471F2257D2; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:08:24 -0500 (EST)
Date:   Tue, 25 Feb 2020 15:08:24 -0500
From:   Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        device-mapper development <dm-devel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/8] drivers/pmem: Allow pmem_clear_poison() to accept
 arbitrary offset and len
Message-ID: <20200225200824.GB7488@redhat.com>
References: <20200220215707.GC10816@redhat.com>
 <x498skv3i5r.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
 <20200221201759.GF25974@redhat.com>
 <20200223230330.GE10737@dread.disaster.area>
 <20200224201346.GC14651@redhat.com>
 <CAPcyv4gGrimesjZ=OKRaYTDd5dUVz+U9aPeBMh_H3_YCz4FOEQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200224211553.GD14651@redhat.com>
 <CAPcyv4gX8p0YuMg3=r9DtPAO3Lz-96nuNyXbK1X5-cyVzNrDTA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200225133653.GA7488@redhat.com>
 <CAPcyv4h2fdo=-jqLPTqnuxYVMbBgODWPqafH35yBMBaPa5Rxcw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4h2fdo=-jqLPTqnuxYVMbBgODWPqafH35yBMBaPa5Rxcw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 08:25:27AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 5:37 AM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 01:32:58PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> > > > > > Ok, how about if I add one more patch to the series which will check
> > > > > > if unwritten portion of the page has known poison. If it has, then
> > > > > > -EIO is returned.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Subject: pmem: zero page range return error if poisoned memory in unwritten area
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Filesystems call into pmem_dax_zero_page_range() to zero partial page upon
> > > > > > truncate. If partial page is being zeroed, then at the end of operation
> > > > > > file systems expect that there is no poison in the whole page (atleast
> > > > > > known poison).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So make sure part of the partial page which is not being written, does not
> > > > > > have poison. If it does, return error. If there is poison in area of page
> > > > > > being written, it will be cleared.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, I don't like that the zero operation is special cased compared to
> > > > > the write case. I'd say let's make them identical for now. I.e. fail
> > > > > the I/O at dax_direct_access() time.
> > > >
> > > > So basically __dax_zero_page_range() will only write zeros (and not
> > > > try to clear any poison). Right?
> > >
> > > Yes, the zero operation would have already failed at the
> > > dax_direct_access() step if there was present poison.
> > >
> > > > > I think the error clearing
> > > > > interface should be an explicit / separate op rather than a
> > > > > side-effect. What about an explicit interface for initializing newly
> > > > > allocated blocks, and the only reliable way to destroy poison through
> > > > > the filesystem is to free the block?
> > > >
> > > > Effectively pmem_make_request() is already that interface filesystems
> > > > use to initialize blocks and clear poison. So we don't really have to
> > > > introduce a new interface?
> > >
> > > pmem_make_request() is shared with the I/O path and is too low in the
> > > stack to understand intent. DAX intercepts the I/O path closer to the
> > > filesystem and can understand zeroing vs writing today. I'm proposing
> > > we go a step further and make DAX understand free-to-allocated-block
> > > initialization instead of just zeroing. Inject the error clearing into
> > > that initialization interface.
> > >
> > > > Or you are suggesting separate dax_zero_page_range() interface which will
> > > > always call into firmware to clear poison. And that will make sure latent
> > > > poison is cleared as well and filesystem should use that for block
> > > > initialization instead?
> > >
> > > Yes, except latent poison would not be cleared until the zeroing is
> > > implemented with movdir64b instead of callouts to firmware. It's
> > > otherwise too slow to call out to firmware unconditionally.
> > >
> > > > I do like the idea of not having to differentiate
> > > > between known poison and latent poison. Once a block has been initialized
> > > > all poison should be cleared (known/latent). I am worried though that
> > > > on large devices this might slowdown filesystem initialization a lot
> > > > if they are zeroing large range of blocks.
> > > >
> > > > If yes, this sounds like two different patch series. First patch series
> > > > takes care of removing blkdev_issue_zeroout() from
> > > > __dax_zero_page_range() and couple of iomap related cleans christoph
> > > > wanted.
> > > >
> > > > And second patch series for adding new dax operation to zero a range
> > > > and always call info firmware to clear poison and modify filesystems
> > > > accordingly.
> > >
> > > Yes, but they may need to be merged together. I don't want to regress
> > > the ability of a block-aligned hole-punch to clear errors.
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > IIUC, block aligned hole punch don't go through __dax_zero_page_range()
> > path. Instead they call blkdev_issue_zeroout() at later point of time.
> >
> > Only partial block zeroing path is taking __dax_zero_page_range(). So
> > even if we remove poison clearing code from __dax_zero_page_range(),
> > there should not be a regression w.r.t full block zeroing. Only possible
> > regression will be if somebody was doing partial block zeroing on sector
> > boundary, then poison will not be cleared.
> >
> > We now seem to be discussing too many issues w.r.t poison clearing
> > and dax. Atleast 3 issues are mentioned in this thread.
> >
> > A. Get rid of dependency on block device in dax zeroing path.
> >    (__dax_zero_page_range)
> >
> > B. Provide a way to clear latent poison. And possibly use movdir64b to
> >    do that and make filesystems use that interface for initialization
> >    of blocks.
> >
> > C. Dax zero operation is clearing known poison while copy_from_iter() is
> >    not. I guess this ship has already sailed. If we change it now,
> >    somebody will complain of some regression.
> >
> > For issue A, there are two possible ways to deal with it.
> >
> > 1. Implement a dax method to zero page. And this method will also clear
> >    known poison. This is what my patch series is doing.
> >
> > 2. Just get rid of blkdev_issue_zeroout() from __dax_zero_page_range()
> >    so that no poison will be cleared in __dax_zero_page_range() path. This
> >    path is currently used in partial page zeroing path and full filesystem
> >    block zeroing happens with blkdev_issue_zeroout(). There is a small
> >    chance of regression here in case of sector aligned partial block
> >    zeroing.
> >
> > My patch series takes care of issue A without any regressions. In fact it
> > improves current interface. For example, currently "truncate -s 512
> > foo.txt" will succeed even if first sector in the block is poisoned. My
> > patch series fixes it. Current implementation will return error on if any
> > non sector aligned truncate is done and any of the sector is poisoned. My
> > implementation will not return error if poisoned can be cleared as part
> > of zeroing. It will return only if poison is present in non-zeoring part.
> 
> That asymmetry makes the implementation too much of a special case. If
> the dax mapping path forces error boundaries on PAGE_SIZE blocks then
> so should zeroing.
> 
> >
> > Why don't we solve one issue A now and deal with issue B and C later in
> > a sepaprate patch series. This patch series gets rid of dependency on
> > block device in dax path and also makes current zeroing interface better.
> 
> I'm ok with replacing blkdev_issue_zeroout() with a dax operation
> callback that deals with page aligned entries. That change at least
> makes the error boundary symmetric across copy_from_iter() and the
> zeroing path.

IIUC, you are suggesting that modify dax_zero_page_range() to take page
aligned start and size and call this interface from
__dax_zero_page_range() and get rid of blkdev_issue_zeroout() in that
path?

Something like.

__dax_zero_page_range() {
  if(page_aligned_io)
  	call_dax_page_zero_range()
  else
   	use_direct_access_and_memcpy;
}

And other callers of blkdev_issue_zeroout() in filesystems can migrate
to calling dax_zero_page_range() instead.

If yes, I am not seeing what advantage do we get by this change.

- __dax_zero_page_range() seems to be called by only partial block
  zeroing code. So dax_zero_page_range() call will remain unused.

- dax_zero_page_range() will be exact replacement of
  blkdev_issue_zeroout() so filesystems will not gain anything. Just that
  it will create a dax specific hook.

In that case it might be simpler to just get rid of blkdev_issue_zeroout()
call from __dax_zero_page_range() and make sure there are no callers of
full block zeroing from this path.

Thanks
Vivek