From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: From: "y-goto@fujitsu.com" To: 'Dave Chinner' CC: Dan Williams , Jan Kara , jmoyer , Johannes Thumshirn , Dave Jiang , linux-nvdimm , Linux MM , linux-fsdevel , linux-ext4 , linux-xfs , Linux API Subject: RE: Problems with VM_MIXEDMAP removal from /proc//smaps Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2018 01:43:27 +0000 Message-ID: References: <20181002100531.GC4135@quack2.suse.cz> <20181002121039.GA3274@linux-x5ow.site> <20181002142959.GD9127@quack2.suse.cz> <20181018002510.GC6311@dastard> <20181018145555.GS23493@quack2.suse.cz> <20181019004303.GI6311@dastard> <20181030224904.GT19305@dastard> <20181101230012.GC19305@dastard> In-Reply-To: <20181101230012.GC19305@dastard> Content-Language: ja-JP Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: > > > MAP_DIRECT is an access hint. > > > > > > MAP_SYNC provides a data integrity model guarantee. > > > > > > MAP_SYNC may imply MAP_DIRECT for specific implementations, > > > but it does not require or guarantee MAP_DIRECT. > > > > > > Let's compare that with O_DIRECT: > > > > > > O_DIRECT in an access hint. > > > > > > O_DSYNC provides a data integrity model guarantee. > > > > > > O_DSYNC may imply O_DIRECT for specific implementations, but > > > it does not require or guarantee O_DIRECT. > > > > > > Consistency in access and data integrity models is a good thing. DAX > > > and pmem is not an exception. We need to use a model we know works > > > and has proven itself over a long period of time. > > > > Hmmm, then, I would like to know all of the reasons of breakage of MAP_= DIRECT. > > (I'm not opposed to your opinion, but I need to know it.) > > > > In O_DIRECT case, in my understanding, the reason of breakage of O_DIRE= CT is > > "wrong alignment is specified by application", right? >=20 > O_DIRECT has defined memory and offset alignment restrictions, and > will return an error to userspace when they are violated. It does > not fall back to buffered IO in this case. MAP_DIRECT has no > equivalent restriction, so IO alignment of O_DIRECT is largely > irrelevant here. >=20 > What we are talking about here is that some filesystems can only do > certain operations through buffered IO, such as block allocation or > file extension, and so silently fall back to doing them via buffered > IO even when O_DIRECT is specified. The old direct IO code used to > be full of conditionals to allow this - I think DIO_SKIP_HOLES is > only one remaining: >=20 > /* > * For writes that could fill holes inside i_size on a > * DIO_SKIP_HOLES filesystem we forbid block creations: o= nly > * overwrites are permitted. We will return early to the = caller > * once we see an unmapped buffer head returned, and the = caller > * will fall back to buffered I/O. > * > * Otherwise the decision is left to the get_blocks metho= d, > * which may decide to handle it or also return an unmapp= ed > * buffer head. > */ > create =3D dio->op =3D=3D REQ_OP_WRITE; > if (dio->flags & DIO_SKIP_HOLES) { > if (fs_startblk <=3D ((i_size_read(dio->inode) - = 1) >> > i_blkbits)) > create =3D 0; > } >=20 > Other cases like file extension cases are caught by the filesystems > before calling into the DIO code itself, so there's multiple avenues > for O_DIRECT transparently falling back to buffered IO. >=20 > This means the applications don't fail just because the filesystem > can't do a specific operation via O_DIRECT. The data writes still > succeed because they fall back to buffered IO, and the application > is blissfully unaware that the filesystem behaved that way. >=20 > > When filesystem can not use O_DIRECT and it uses page cache instead, > > then system uses more memory resource than user's expectation. >=20 > That's far better than failing unexpectedly because the app > unexpectedly came across a hole in the file (e.g. someone ran > sparsify across the filesystem). >=20 > > So, there is a side effect, and it may cause other trouble. > > (memory pressure, expected performance can not be gained, and so on ..) >=20 > Which is why people are supposed to test their systems before they > put them into production. >=20 > I've lost count of the number of times I've heard "but O_DIRECT is > supposed to make things faster!" because people don't understand > exactly what it does or means. Bypassing the page cache does not > magically make applications go faster - it puts the responsibility > for doing optimal IO on the application, not the kernel. >=20 > MAP_DIRECT will be no different. It's no guarantee that it will make > things faster, or that everything will just work as users expect > them to. It specifically places the responsibility for performing IO > in an optimal fashion on the application and the user for making > sure that it is fit for their purposes. Like O_DIRECT, using > MAP_DIRECT means "I, the application, know exactly what I'm doing, > so get out of the way as much as possible because I'm taking > responsibility for issuing IO in the most optimal manner now". >=20 > > In such case its administrator (or technical support engineer) needs to= struggle to > > investigate what is the reason. >=20 > That's no different to performance problems that arise from > inappropriate use of O_DIRECT. It requires a certain level of > expertise to be able to understand and diagnose such issues. >=20 > > So, I would like to know in MAP_DIRECT case, what is the reasons? > > I think it will be helpful for users. > > Only splice? >=20 > The filesystem can ignore MAP_DIRECT for any reason it needs to. I'm > certain that filesystem developers will try to maintain MAP_DIRECT > semantics as much as possible, but it's not going to be possible in > /all situations/ on XFS and ext4 because they simply haven't been > designed with DAX in mind. Filesystems designed specifically for > pmem and DAX might be able to provide MAP_DIRECT in all situations, > but those filesystems don't really exist yet. >=20 > This is no different to the early days of O_DIRECT. e.g. ext3 > couldn't do O_DIRECT for all operations when it was first > introduced, but over time the functionality improved as the > underlying issues were solved. If O_DIRECT was a guarantee, then > ext3 would have never supported O_DIRECT at all... Hmm, Ok. I see. Thank you very much for your detail explanation. >=20 > > (Maybe such document will be necessary....) >=20 > The semantics will need to be documented in the relevant man pages. I agree. Thanks, again. ---- Yasunori Goto