Linux-NVDIMM Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/19] dax: remove block device dependencies
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 14:23:04 -0800
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
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-leave@lists.01.org

  reply index

Thread overview: 76+ 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
2020-01-15  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 publically 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=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 \
    /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

Linux-NVDIMM Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nvdimm/0 linux-nvdimm/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-nvdimm linux-nvdimm/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-nvdimm \
		linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
	public-inbox-index linux-nvdimm

Example config snippet for mirrors

Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.01.lists.linux-nvdimm


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git