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=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED,
	HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,
	URIBL_BLOCKED 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 C541EC4BA01
	for <linux-nvdimm@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 22:49:46 +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 95F4021927
	for <linux-nvdimm@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 22:49:46 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org;
	dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.i=@intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.b="Lfl8aQwG"
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 95F4021927
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=intel.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 2D9FC10FC36C5;
	Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:50:38 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: Pass (mailfrom) identity=mailfrom; client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::241; helo=mail-oi1-x241.google.com; envelope-from=dan.j.williams@intel.com; receiver=<UNKNOWN> 
Received: from mail-oi1-x241.google.com (mail-oi1-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::241])
	(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits))
	(No client certificate requested)
	by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E299310FC3602
	for <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:50:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-oi1-x241.google.com with SMTP id i1so1019216oie.8
        for <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:49:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623;
        h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to
         :cc;
        bh=wj5T1UtJ1FhajyQP2DE5DlzXgLbIbN8zZKz81bFb3dc=;
        b=Lfl8aQwG7T5yRx7bX7opscefnao9sE0xgLdVx2fmSNx7FV/bJD8jUAh3sSF32CPXhn
         nRbaLkWaDYP+wkYiU40WHRS5jiwFPt8PfqckcoQ1GRtAUJ+5RzVjg78jv9QRNa3Jq9oy
         UtuFpMQ1zCDE3OKMYYCdOnPGbGUrKFq/HkwED+8CUnXdqaNnbi4adJOzfqjMjMxz09Pj
         Sf5K3S8+HvwlkdsykgCqgjVEJFzO/HMbB+UE4oDVrcMiEdSWICaGTGQyVo2i8EB1CdnE
         cROHXpa6jUqeIYW3Sa/FBcb3PWGYVQvULNEGrFTv3fY/udyAw9+jj2+63sAbzg/qR7MB
         Oxpg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
         :message-id:subject:to:cc;
        bh=wj5T1UtJ1FhajyQP2DE5DlzXgLbIbN8zZKz81bFb3dc=;
        b=EUSCq+3CLMZTeClR7IQJScQZKAHMRK6MhcSCZJ4uyXDexjUls+ONTU3EbdHn+/kGZ6
         5nTySCSd+wmZXXTvhw5ozP1yqAGrYczQ7Aeoz2klRL3UAY7ngmFUxwjJyFiOd/zXRsNY
         6SdcpAKymS3HLLb+EY+S6I5xhVtwJPVJYRzALys91lR7ddaINrl7Jp5Bjj6lU3dMfYcu
         /v7FbEi/E84ScaaIyiDeQ2njBebR/mBUrZROVlDwiWHWeqkGcFmyQTsXBKZ1OH/T2lkG
         0UJFZ7cgp6GFCIvaZUKq4lbPWC81GcKg2I6e6//l5WE7uU6NCwUvAOObIE0A+4YIoq+h
         vb5g==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAW+Y8Jc14lzE6fNmQojAAcF+XdijbO0VVDo3EgiPXbPtt9e5nqU
	VKGu4rjeBsImNE3VHxdQPZ1pV6v2j0ayd8Izfusfww==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzSI0mKTSVTY2eTavO43X86cRUSGftoZ9+jxIZhPGdiDKxGoShk7Z7SDfrrWFaqA62qLsTd6iLzhdaZO9QSqdM=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:a83:: with SMTP id q3mr1010050oij.0.1582670982001;
 Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:49:42 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <20200225200824.GB7488@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200225200824.GB7488@redhat.com>
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2020 14:49:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4jN7ntOO2hK4ByDcX4-Kob=aJNOr3fGR_k_8rxZ=3Sz7w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/8] drivers/pmem: Allow pmem_clear_poison() to accept
 arbitrary offset and len
To: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Message-ID-Hash: 3ZEILSA5C6OVVRPUME5V2GJ77PRCGYB2
X-Message-ID-Hash: 3ZEILSA5C6OVVRPUME5V2GJ77PRCGYB2
X-MailFrom: dan.j.williams@intel.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/3ZEILSA5C6OVVRPUME5V2GJ77PRCGYB2/>
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 12:08 PM Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

I think you're right. The path I'm concerned about not regressing is
the error clearing on new block allocation and we get that already via
xfs_zero_extent() and sb_issue_zeroout(). For your fs we'll want a
dax-device equivalent  for that path, but that does mean that
__dax_zero_page_range() stays out of the error clearing game.
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
To unsubscribe send an email to linux-nvdimm-leave@lists.01.org