From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:13:43 -0300 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Message-ID: <20190821181343.GH8653@ziepe.ca> References: <20190814180848.GB31490@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> <20190815130558.GF14313@quack2.suse.cz> <20190816190528.GB371@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> <20190817022603.GW6129@dread.disaster.area> <20190819063412.GA20455@quack2.suse.cz> <20190819092409.GM7777@dread.disaster.area> <20190819123841.GC5058@ziepe.ca> <20190820011210.GP7777@dread.disaster.area> <20190820115515.GA29246@ziepe.ca> <20190821180200.GA5965@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190821180200.GA5965@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Ira Weiny Cc: Dave Chinner , Jan Kara , Andrew Morton , Dan Williams , Matthew Wilcox , Theodore Ts'o , John Hubbard , Michal Hocko , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:02:00AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 08:55:15AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:12:10AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 09:38:41AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 07:24:09PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > > > > > So that leaves just the normal close() syscall exit case, where the > > > > > application has full control of the order in which resources are > > > > > released. We've already established that we can block in this > > > > > context. Blocking in an interruptible state will allow fatal signal > > > > > delivery to wake us, and then we fall into the > > > > > fatal_signal_pending() case if we get a SIGKILL while blocking. > > > > > > > > The major problem with RDMA is that it doesn't always wait on close() for the > > > > MR holding the page pins to be destoyed. This is done to avoid a > > > > deadlock of the form: > > > > > > > > uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw() > > > > mutex_lock() > > > > [..] > > > > mmput() > > > > exit_mmap() > > > > remove_vma() > > > > fput(); > > > > file_operations->release() > > > > > > I think this is wrong, and I'm pretty sure it's an example of why > > > the final __fput() call is moved out of line. > > > > Yes, I think so too, all I can say is this *used* to happen, as we > > have special code avoiding it, which is the code that is messing up > > Ira's lifetime model. > > > > Ira, you could try unraveling the special locking, that solves your > > lifetime issues? > > Yes I will try to prove this out... But I'm still not sure this fully solves > the problem. > > This only ensures that the process which has the RDMA context (RDMA FD) is safe > with regard to hanging the close for the "data file FD" (the file which has > pinned pages) in that _same_ process. But what about the scenario. Oh, I didn't think we were talking about that. Hanging the close of the datafile fd contingent on some other FD's closure is a recipe for deadlock.. IMHO the pin refcnt is held by the driver char dev FD, that is the object you need to make it visible against. Why not just have a single table someplace of all the layout leases with the file they are held on and the FD/socket/etc that is holding the pin? Make it independent of processes and FDs? Jason