From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>, linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@redhat.com>, virtio-fs@redhat.com, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/19] dax: remove block device dependencies Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 14:23:04 -0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <CAPcyv4igrs40uWuCB163PPBLqyGVaVbaNfE=kCfHRPRuvZdxQA@mail.gmail.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20200114212805.GB3145@redhat.com> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 1:28 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:39:00PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:31 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 09, 2020 at 12:03:01PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 3:27 AM Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Tue 07-01-20 10:49:55, Dan Williams wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 10:33 AM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > W.r.t partitioning, bdev_dax_pgoff() seems to be the pain point where > > > > > > > dax code refers back to block device to figure out partition offset in > > > > > > > dax device. If we create a dax object corresponding to "struct block_device" > > > > > > > and store sector offset in that, then we could pass that object to dax > > > > > > > code and not worry about referring back to bdev. I have written some > > > > > > > proof of concept code and called that object "dax_handle". I can post > > > > > > > that code if there is interest. > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think it's worth it in the end especially considering > > > > > > filesystems are looking to operate on /dev/dax devices directly and > > > > > > remove block entanglements entirely. > > > > > > > > > > > > > IMHO, it feels useful to be able to partition and use a dax capable > > > > > > > block device in same way as non-dax block device. It will be really > > > > > > > odd to think that if filesystem is on /dev/pmem0p1, then dax can't > > > > > > > be enabled but if filesystem is on /dev/mapper/pmem0p1, then dax > > > > > > > will work. > > > > > > > > > > > > That can already happen today. If you do not properly align the > > > > > > partition then dax operations will be disabled. This proposal just > > > > > > extends that existing failure domain to make all partitions fail to > > > > > > support dax. > > > > > > > > > > Well, I have some sympathy with the sysadmin that has /dev/pmem0 device, > > > > > decides to create partitions on it for whatever (possibly misguided) > > > > > reason and then ponders why the hell DAX is not working? And PAGE_SIZE > > > > > partition alignment is so obvious and widespread that I don't count it as a > > > > > realistic error case sysadmins would be pondering about currently. > > > > > > > > > > So I'd find two options reasonably consistent: > > > > > 1) Keep status quo where partitions are created and support DAX. > > > > > 2) Stop partition creation altogether, if anyones wants to split pmem > > > > > device further, he can use dm-linear for that (i.e., kpartx). > > > > > > > > > > But I'm not sure if the ship hasn't already sailed for option 2) to be > > > > > feasible without angry users and Linus reverting the change. > > > > > > > > Christoph? I feel myself leaning more and more to the "keep pmem > > > > partitions" camp. > > > > > > > > I don't see "drop partition support" effort ending well given the long > > > > standing "ext4 fails to mount when dax is not available" precedent. > > > > > > > > I think the next least bad option is to have a dax_get_by_host() > > > > variant that passes an offset and length pair rather than requiring a > > > > later bdev_dax_pgoff() to recall the offset. This also prevents > > > > needing to add another dax-device object representation. > > > > > > I am wondering what's the conclusion on this. I want to this to make > > > progress in some direction so that I can make progress on virtiofs DAX > > > support. > > > > I think we should at least try to delete the partition support and see > > if anyone screams. Have a module option to revert the behavior so > > people are not stuck waiting for the revert to land, but if it stays > > quiet then we're in a better place with that support pushed out of the > > dax core. > > Hi Dan, > > So basically keep partition support code just that disable it by default > and it is enabled by some knob say kernel command line option/module > option. Yes. > At what point of time will we remove that code completely. I mean what > if people scream after two kernel releases, after we have removed the > code. I'd follow the typical timelines of Documentation/ABI/obsolete which is a year or more. > > Also, from distribution's perspective, we might not hear from our > customers for a very long time (till we backport that code in to > existing releases or release this new code in next major release). From > that view point I will not like to break existing user visible behavior. > > How bad it is to keep partition support around. To me it feels reasonaly > simple where we just have to store offset into dax device into another > dax object: If we end up keeping partition support, we're not adding another object. > and pass that object around (instead of dax_device). If that's > the case, I am not sure why to even venture into a direction where some > user's setup might be broken. It was a mistake to support them. If that mistake can be undone without breaking existing deployments the code base is better off without the concept. > Also from an application perspective, /dev/pmem is a block device, so it > should behave like a block device, (including kernel partition table support). > From that view, dax looks like just an additional feature of that device > which can be enabled by passing option "-o dax". dax via block devices was a crutch that we leaned on too heavily, and the implementation has slowly been moving away from it ever since. > IOW, can we reconsider the idea of not supporting kernel partition tables > for dax capable block devices. I can only see downsides of removing kernel > partition table support and only upside seems to be little cleanup of dax > core code. Can you help find end users that depend on it? Even the Red Hat installation guide example shows mounting on pmem0 directly. [1] My primary concern is people that might be booting from pmem as boot support requires an EFI partition table, and initramfs images would need to be respun to move to kpartx. [1]: https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_enterprise_linux/7/html-single/storage_administration_guide/index#Configuring-Persistent-Memory-for-File-System-Direct-Access-DAX
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-14 22:23 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 77+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2019-08-21 17:57 [PATCH v3 00/19][RFC] virtio-fs: Enable DAX support Vivek Goyal 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 01/19] dax: remove block device dependencies Vivek Goyal 2019-08-26 11:51 ` Christoph Hellwig 2019-08-27 16:38 ` Vivek Goyal 2019-08-28 6:58 ` Christoph Hellwig 2019-08-28 17:58 ` Vivek Goyal 2019-08-28 22:53 ` Dave Chinner 2019-08-29 0:04 ` Dan Williams 2019-08-29 9:32 ` Christoph Hellwig 2019-12-16 18:10 ` Vivek Goyal 2020-01-07 12:51 ` Christoph Hellwig 2020-01-07 14:22 ` Dan Williams 2020-01-07 17:07 ` Darrick J. Wong 2020-01-07 17:29 ` Dan Williams 2020-01-07 18:01 ` Vivek Goyal 2020-01-07 18:07 ` Dan Williams 2020-01-07 18:33 ` Vivek Goyal 2020-01-07 18:49 ` Dan Williams 2020-01-07 19:02 ` Darrick J. Wong 2020-01-07 19:46 ` Dan Williams 2020-01-07 23:38 ` Dan Williams 2020-01-09 11:24 ` Jan Kara 2020-01-09 20:03 ` Dan Williams 2020-01-10 12:36 ` Christoph Hellwig 2020-01-14 20:31 ` Vivek Goyal 2020-01-14 20:39 ` Dan Williams 2020-01-14 21:28 ` Vivek Goyal 2020-01-14 22:23 ` Dan Williams [this message] 2020-01-15 19:56 ` Vivek Goyal 2020-01-15 20:17 ` Dan Williams 2020-01-15 21:08 ` Jeff Moyer 2020-01-16 18:09 ` Dan Williams 2020-01-16 18:39 ` Vivek Goyal 2020-01-16 19:09 ` Dan Williams 2020-01-16 19:23 ` Vivek Goyal 2020-02-11 17:33 ` Vivek Goyal 2020-01-15 9:03 ` Jan Kara 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 02/19] dax: Pass dax_dev to dax_writeback_mapping_range() Vivek Goyal 2019-08-26 11:53 ` Christoph Hellwig 2019-08-26 20:33 ` Vivek Goyal 2019-08-26 20:58 ` Vivek Goyal 2019-08-26 21:33 ` Dan Williams 2019-08-28 6:58 ` Christoph Hellwig 2020-01-03 14:12 ` Vivek Goyal 2020-01-03 18:12 ` Dan Williams 2020-01-03 18:18 ` Dan Williams 2020-01-03 18:33 ` Vivek Goyal 2020-01-03 19:30 ` Dan Williams 2020-01-03 18:43 ` Vivek Goyal 2019-08-27 13:45 ` Jan Kara 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 03/19] virtio: Add get_shm_region method Vivek Goyal 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 04/19] virtio: Implement get_shm_region for PCI transport Vivek Goyal 2019-08-26 1:43 ` [Virtio-fs] " piaojun 2019-08-26 13:06 ` Vivek Goyal 2019-08-27 9:41 ` piaojun 2019-08-27 8:34 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-08-27 8:46 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-08-27 11:53 ` Vivek Goyal 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 05/19] virtio: Implement get_shm_region for MMIO transport Vivek Goyal 2019-08-27 8:39 ` Cornelia Huck 2019-08-27 11:54 ` Vivek Goyal 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 06/19] fuse, dax: add fuse_conn->dax_dev field Vivek Goyal 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 07/19] virtio_fs, dax: Set up virtio_fs dax_device Vivek Goyal 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 08/19] fuse: Keep a list of free dax memory ranges Vivek Goyal 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 09/19] fuse: implement FUSE_INIT map_alignment field Vivek Goyal 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 10/19] fuse: Introduce setupmapping/removemapping commands Vivek Goyal 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 11/19] fuse, dax: Implement dax read/write operations Vivek Goyal 2019-08-21 19:49 ` Liu Bo 2019-08-22 12:59 ` Vivek Goyal 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 12/19] fuse, dax: add DAX mmap support Vivek Goyal 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 13/19] fuse: Define dax address space operations Vivek Goyal 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 14/19] fuse, dax: Take ->i_mmap_sem lock during dax page fault Vivek Goyal 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 15/19] fuse: Maintain a list of busy elements Vivek Goyal 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 16/19] dax: Create a range version of dax_layout_busy_page() Vivek Goyal 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 17/19] fuse: Add logic to free up a memory range Vivek Goyal 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 18/19] fuse: Release file in process context Vivek Goyal 2019-08-21 17:57 ` [PATCH 19/19] fuse: Take inode lock for dax inode truncation Vivek Goyal
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to='CAPcyv4igrs40uWuCB163PPBLqyGVaVbaNfE=kCfHRPRuvZdxQA@mail.gmail.com' \ --to=dan.j.williams@intel.com \ --cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \ --cc=david@fromorbit.com \ --cc=dgilbert@redhat.com \ --cc=hch@infradead.org \ --cc=jack@suse.cz \ --cc=jmoyer@redhat.com \ --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \ --cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \ --cc=stefanha@redhat.com \ --cc=vgoyal@redhat.com \ --cc=virtio-fs@redhat.com \ --subject='Re: [PATCH 01/19] dax: remove block device dependencies' \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).