Re: 回复: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/8] dax: Add a dax-rmap tree to support reflink

[Ruan Shiyang <ruansy.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>]

On 2020/4/28 下午2:43, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2020 at 06:09:47AM +0000, Ruan, Shiyang wrote:
>>
>> 在 2020/4/27 20:28:36, "Matthew Wilcox" <willy@infradead.org> 写道:
>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 04:47:42PM +0800, Shiyang Ruan wrote:
>>>>   This patchset is a try to resolve the shared 'page cache' problem for
>>>>   fsdax.
>>>>
>>>>   In order to track multiple mappings and indexes on one page, I
>>>>   introduced a dax-rmap rb-tree to manage the relationship.  A dax entry
>>>>   will be associated more than once if is shared.  At the second time we
>>>>   associate this entry, we create this rb-tree and store its root in
>>>>   page->private(not used in fsdax).  Insert (->mapping, ->index) when
>>>>   dax_associate_entry() and delete it when dax_disassociate_entry().
>>>
>>> Do we really want to track all of this on a per-page basis?  I would
>>> have thought a per-extent basis was more useful.  Essentially, create
>>> a new address_space for each shared extent.  Per page just seems like
>>> a huge overhead.
>>>
>> Per-extent tracking is a nice idea for me.  I haven't thought of it
>> yet...
>>
>> But the extent info is maintained by filesystem.  I think we need a way
>> to obtain this info from FS when associating a page.  May be a bit
>> complicated.  Let me think about it...
> 
> That's why I want the -user of this association- to do a filesystem
> callout instead of keeping it's own naive tracking infrastructure.
> The filesystem can do an efficient, on-demand reverse mapping lookup
> from it's own extent tracking infrastructure, and there's zero
> runtime overhead when there are no errors present.

Hi Dave,

I ran into some difficulties when trying to implement the per-extent 
rmap tracking.  So, I re-read your comments and found that I was 
misunderstanding what you described here.

I think what you mean is: we don't need the in-memory dax-rmap tracking 
now.  Just ask the FS for the owner's information that associate with 
one page when memory-failure.  So, the per-page (even per-extent) 
dax-rmap is needless in this case.  Is this right?

Based on this, we only need to store the extent information of a fsdax 
page in its ->mapping (by searching from FS).  Then obtain the owners of 
this page (also by searching from FS) when memory-failure or other rmap 
case occurs.

So, a fsdax page is no longer associated with a specific file, but with 
a FS(or the pmem device).  I think it's easier to understand and implement.


--
Thanks,
Ruan Shiyang.
> 
> At the moment, this "dax association" is used to "report" a storage
> media error directly to userspace. I say "report" because what it
> does is kill userspace processes dead. The storage media error
> actually needs to be reported to the owner of the storage media,
> which in the case of FS-DAX is the filesytem.
> 
> That way the filesystem can then look up all the owners of that bad
> media range (i.e. the filesystem block it corresponds to) and take
> appropriate action. e.g.
> 
> - if it falls in filesytem metadata, shutdown the filesystem
> - if it falls in user data, call the "kill userspace dead" routines
>    for each mapping/index tuple the filesystem finds for the given
>    LBA address that the media error occurred.
> 
> Right now if the media error is in filesystem metadata, the
> filesystem isn't even told about it. The filesystem can't even shut
> down - the error is just dropped on the floor and it won't be until
> the filesystem next tries to reference that metadata that we notice
> there is an issue.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
>