Re: [PATCH v9 02/10] dax: Introduce holder for dax_device

[Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>]

On Wed, Jan 5, 2022 at 10:12 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 26, 2021 at 10:34:31PM +0800, Shiyang Ruan wrote:
> > To easily track filesystem from a pmem device, we introduce a holder for
> > dax_device structure, and also its operation.  This holder is used to
> > remember who is using this dax_device:
> >  - When it is the backend of a filesystem, the holder will be the
> >    instance of this filesystem.
> >  - When this pmem device is one of the targets in a mapped device, the
> >    holder will be this mapped device.  In this case, the mapped device
> >    has its own dax_device and it will follow the first rule.  So that we
> >    can finally track to the filesystem we needed.
> >
> > The holder and holder_ops will be set when filesystem is being mounted,
> > or an target device is being activated.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shiyang Ruan <ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/dax/super.c | 62 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >  include/linux/dax.h | 29 +++++++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 91 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/dax/super.c b/drivers/dax/super.c
> > index c46f56e33d40..94c51f2ee133 100644
> > --- a/drivers/dax/super.c
> > +++ b/drivers/dax/super.c
> > @@ -20,15 +20,20 @@
> >   * @inode: core vfs
> >   * @cdev: optional character interface for "device dax"
> >   * @private: dax driver private data
> > + * @holder_data: holder of a dax_device: could be filesystem or mapped device
> >   * @flags: state and boolean properties
> > + * @ops: operations for dax_device
> > + * @holder_ops: operations for the inner holder
> >   */
> >  struct dax_device {
> >       struct inode inode;
> >       struct cdev cdev;
> >       void *private;
> >       struct percpu_rw_semaphore rwsem;
> > +     void *holder_data;
> >       unsigned long flags;
> >       const struct dax_operations *ops;
> > +     const struct dax_holder_operations *holder_ops;
> >  };
> >
> >  static dev_t dax_devt;
> > @@ -192,6 +197,29 @@ int dax_zero_page_range(struct dax_device *dax_dev, pgoff_t pgoff,
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dax_zero_page_range);
> >
> > +int dax_holder_notify_failure(struct dax_device *dax_dev, u64 off,
> > +                           u64 len, int mf_flags)
> > +{
> > +     int rc;
> > +
> > +     dax_read_lock(dax_dev);
> > +     if (!dax_alive(dax_dev)) {
> > +             rc = -ENXIO;
> > +             goto out;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     if (!dax_dev->holder_ops) {
> > +             rc = -EOPNOTSUPP;
> > +             goto out;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     rc = dax_dev->holder_ops->notify_failure(dax_dev, off, len, mf_flags);
> > +out:
> > +     dax_read_unlock(dax_dev);
> > +     return rc;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(dax_holder_notify_failure);
> > +
> >  #ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PMEM_API
> >  void arch_wb_cache_pmem(void *addr, size_t size);
> >  void dax_flush(struct dax_device *dax_dev, void *addr, size_t size)
> > @@ -254,6 +282,10 @@ void kill_dax(struct dax_device *dax_dev)
> >               return;
> >       dax_write_lock(dax_dev);
> >       clear_bit(DAXDEV_ALIVE, &dax_dev->flags);
> > +
> > +     /* clear holder data */
> > +     dax_dev->holder_ops = NULL;
> > +     dax_dev->holder_data = NULL;
> >       dax_write_unlock(dax_dev);
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kill_dax);
> > @@ -401,6 +433,36 @@ void put_dax(struct dax_device *dax_dev)
> >  }
> >  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(put_dax);
> >
> > +void dax_register_holder(struct dax_device *dax_dev, void *holder,
> > +             const struct dax_holder_operations *ops)
> > +{
> > +     if (!dax_alive(dax_dev))
> > +             return;
> > +
> > +     dax_dev->holder_data = holder;
> > +     dax_dev->holder_ops = ops;
>
> Shouldn't this return an error code if the dax device is dead or if
> someone already registered a holder?  I'm pretty sure XFS should not
> bind to a dax device if someone else already registered for it...

Agree, yes.

>
> ...unless you want to use a notifier chain for failure events so that
> there can be multiple consumers of dax failure events?

No, I would hope not. It should be 1:1 holders to dax-devices. Similar
ownership semantics like bd_prepare_to_claim().