From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: david <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Problems with VM_MIXEDMAP removal from /proc/<pid>/smaps
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 15:59:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gwBJ65170Gy+EaDLpomA93kxuWTM10mZeaPYV6Rq=SRw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181030224904.GT19305@dastard>
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 3:49 PM Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 11:30:41PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 5:58 PM Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2018 at 04:55:55PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Thu 18-10-18 11:25:10, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 04:23:50PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > > > > > MAP_SYNC
> > > > > > - file system guarantees that metadata required to reach faulted-in file
> > > > > > data is consistent on media before a write fault is completed. A
> > > > > > side-effect is that the page cache will not be used for
> > > > > > writably-mapped pages.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think you are conflating current implementation with API
> > > > > requirements - MAP_SYNC doesn't guarantee anything about page cache
> > > > > use. The man page definition simply says "supported only for files
> > > > > supporting DAX" and that it provides certain data integrity
> > > > > guarantees. It does not define the implementation.
> ....
> > > > With O_DIRECT the fallback to buffered IO is quite rare (at least for major
> > > > filesystems) so usually people just won't notice. If fallback for
> > > > MAP_DIRECT will be easy to hit, I'm not sure it would be very useful.
> > >
> > > Which is just like the situation where O_DIRECT on ext3 was not very
> > > useful, but on other filesystems like XFS it was fully functional.
> > >
> > > IMO, the fact that a specific filesytem has a suboptimal fallback
> > > path for an uncommon behaviour isn't an argument against MAP_DIRECT
> > > as a hint - it's actually a feature. If MAP_DIRECT can't be used
> > > until it's always direct access, then most filesystems wouldn't be
> > > able to provide any faster paths at all. It's much better to have
> > > partial functionality now than it is to never have the functionality
> > > at all, and so we need to design in the flexibility we need to
> > > iteratively improve implementations without needing API changes that
> > > will break applications.
> >
> > The hard guarantee requirement still remains though because an
> > application that expects combined MAP_SYNC|MAP_DIRECT semantics will
> > be surprised if the MAP_DIRECT property silently disappears.
>
> Why would they be surprised? They won't even notice it if the
> filesystem can provide MAP_SYNC without MAP_DIRECT.
>
> And that's the whole point.
>
> MAP_DIRECT is a private mapping state. So is MAP_SYNC. They are not
> visible to the filesystem and the filesystem does nothing to enforce
> them. If someone does something that requires the page cache (e.g.
> calls do_splice_direct()) then that MAP_DIRECT mapping has a whole
> heap of new work to do. And, in some cases, the filesystem may not
> be able to provide MAP_DIRECT as a result..
>
> IOWs, the filesystem cannot guarantee MAP_DIRECT and the
> circumstances under which MAP_DIRECT will and will not work are
> dynamic. If MAP_DIRECT is supposed to be a guarantee then we'll have
> applications randomly segfaulting in production as things like
> backups, indexers, etc run over the filesystem and do their work.
>
> This is why MAP_DIRECT needs to be an optimisation, not a
> requirement - things will still work if MAP_DIRECT is not used. What
> matters to these applications is MAP_SYNC - if we break MAP_SYNC,
> then the application data integrity model is violated. That's not an
> acceptible outcome.
>
> The problem, it seems to me, is that people are unable to separate
> MAP_DIRECT and MAP_SYNC. I suspect that is because, at present,
> MAP_SYNC on XFS and ext4 requires MAP_DIRECT. i.e. we can only
> provide MAP_SYNC functionality on DAX mappings. However, that's a
> /filesystem implementation issue/, not an API guarantee we need to
> provide to userspace.
>
> If we implement a persistent page cache (e.g. allocate page cache
> pages out of ZONE_DEVICE pmem), then filesystems like XFS and ext4
> could provide applications with the MAP_SYNC data integrity model
> without MAP_DIRECT. Indeed, those filesystems would not even be able
> to provide MAP_DIRECT semantics because they aren't backed by pmem.
>
> Hence if applications that want MAP_SYNC are hard coded
> MAP_SYNC|MAP_DIRECT and we make MAP_DIRECT a hard guarantee, then
> those applications are going to fail on a filesystem that provides
> only MAP_SYNC. This is despite the fact the applications would
> function correctly and the data integrity model would be maintained.
> i.e. the failure is because applications have assumed MAP_SYNC can
> only be provided by a DAX implementation, not because MAP_SYNC is
> not supported.
>
> MAP_SYNC really isn't about DAX at all. It's about enabling a data
> integrity model that requires the filesystem to provide userspace
> access to CPU addressable persistent memory. DAX+MAP_DIRECT is just
> one method of providing this functionality, but it's not the only
> method. Our API needs to be future proof rather than an encoding of
> the existing implementation limitations, otherwise apps will have to
> be re-written as every new MAP_SYNC capable technology comes along.
>
> In summary:
>
> MAP_DIRECT is an access hint.
>
> MAP_SYNC provides a data integrity model guarantee.
>
> MAP_SYNC may imply MAP_DIRECT for specific implementations,
> but it does not require or guarantee MAP_DIRECT.
>
> Let's compare that with O_DIRECT:
>
> O_DIRECT in an access hint.
>
> O_DSYNC provides a data integrity model guarantee.
>
> O_DSYNC may imply O_DIRECT for specific implementations, but
> it does not require or guarantee O_DIRECT.
>
> Consistency in access and data integrity models is a good thing. DAX
> and pmem is not an exception. We need to use a model we know works
> and has proven itself over a long period of time.
>
> > I think
> > it still makes some sense as a hint for apps that want to minimize
> > page cache, but for the applications with a flush from userspace model
> > I think that wants to be an F_SETLEASE / F_DIRECTLCK operation. This
> > still gives the filesystem the option to inject page-cache at will,
> > but with an application coordination point.
>
> Why make it more complex for applications than it needs to be?
With the clarification that MAP_SYNC implies "cpu cache flush to
persistent memory page-cache *or* dax to persistent memory" I think
all of the concerns are addressed. I was conflating MAP_DIRECT as "no
page cache indirection", but the indirection does not matter if the
page cache itself is persisted.
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-10-30 22:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 45+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-10-02 10:05 Problems with VM_MIXEDMAP removal from /proc/<pid>/smaps Jan Kara
2018-10-02 10:50 ` Michal Hocko
2018-10-02 13:32 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-02 12:10 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-10-02 14:20 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-10-02 14:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-10-02 15:01 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-10-02 15:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-10-04 10:09 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-10-05 6:25 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-10-05 6:35 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-10-06 1:17 ` Dan Williams
2018-10-14 15:47 ` Dan Williams
2018-10-17 20:01 ` Dan Williams
2018-10-18 17:43 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-18 19:10 ` Dan Williams
2018-10-19 3:01 ` Dave Chinner
2018-10-02 14:29 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-02 14:37 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-10-02 14:44 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-10-02 14:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-10-02 15:31 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-02 20:18 ` Dan Williams
2018-10-03 12:50 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-03 14:38 ` Dan Williams
2018-10-03 15:06 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-03 15:13 ` Dan Williams
2018-10-03 16:44 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-03 21:13 ` Dan Williams
2018-10-04 10:04 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2018-10-02 15:07 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-17 20:23 ` Jeff Moyer
2018-10-18 0:25 ` Dave Chinner
2018-10-18 14:55 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-19 0:43 ` Dave Chinner
2018-10-30 6:30 ` Dan Williams
2018-10-30 22:49 ` Dave Chinner
2018-10-30 22:59 ` Dan Williams [this message]
2018-10-31 5:59 ` y-goto
2018-11-01 23:00 ` Dave Chinner
2018-11-02 1:43 ` y-goto
2018-10-18 21:05 ` Jeff Moyer
2018-10-09 19:43 ` Jeff Moyer
2018-10-16 8:25 ` Jan Kara
2018-10-16 12:35 ` Jeff Moyer
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly 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='CAPcyv4gwBJ65170Gy+EaDLpomA93kxuWTM10mZeaPYV6Rq=SRw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).