Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1483859
| From | "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: DAX mapping detection (was: Re: [PATCH] Fix region lost in /proc/self/smaps) |
| Date | 2016-09-15 08:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <shxSh-2ZY-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <seZi1-15I-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <sfgsz-3pz-85@gated-at.bofh.it> <sgoxI-5f9-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 11:40:35AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 04:56:36PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2016 at 09:32:36PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > > My understanding is that it is looking for the VM_MIXEDMAP flag which > > > is already ambiguous for determining if DAX is enabled even if this > > > dynamic listing issue is fixed. XFS has arranged for DAX to be a > > > per-inode capability and has an XFS-specific inode flag. We can make > > > that a common inode flag, but it seems we should have a way to > > > interrogate the mapping itself in the case where the inode is unknown > > > or unavailable. I'm thinking extensions to mincore to have flags for > > > DAX and possibly whether the page is part of a pte, pmd, or pud > > > mapping. Just floating that idea before starting to look into the > > > implementation, comments or other ideas welcome... > > > > I think this goes back to our previous discussion about support for the PMEM > > programming model. Really I think what NVML needs isn't a way to tell if it > > is getting a DAX mapping, but whether it is getting a DAX mapping on a > > filesystem that fully supports the PMEM programming model. This of course is > > defined to be a filesystem where it can do all of its flushes from userspace > > safely and never call fsync/msync, and that allocations that happen in page > > faults will be synchronized to media before the page fault completes. > > > > IIUC this is what NVML needs - a way to decide "do I use fsync/msync for > > everything or can I rely fully on flushes from userspace?" > > "need fsync/msync" is a dynamic state of an inode, not a static > property. i.e. users can do things that change an inode behind the > back of a mapping, even if they are not aware that this might > happen. As such, a filesystem can invalidate an existing mapping > at any time and userspace won't notice because it will simply fault > in a new mapping on the next access... > > > For all existing implementations, I think the answer is "you need to use > > fsync/msync" because we don't yet have proper support for the PMEM programming > > model. > > Yes, that is correct. > > FWIW, I don't think it will ever be possible to support this .... > wonderful "PMEM programming model" from any current or future kernel > filesystem without a very specific set of restrictions on what can > be done to a file. e.g. > > 1. the file has to be fully allocated and zeroed before > use. Preallocation/zeroing via unwritten extents is not > allowed. Sparse files are not allowed. Shared extents are > not allowed. > 2. set the "PMEM_IMMUTABLE" inode flag - filesystem must > check the file is fully allocated before allowing it to > be set, and caller must have CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE. > 3. Inode metadata is now immutable, and file data can only > be accessed and/or modified via mmap(). > 4. All non-mmap methods of inode data modification > will now fail with EPERM. > 5. all methods of inode metadata modification will now fail > with EPERM, timestamp udpdates will be ignored. > 6. PMEM_IMMUTABLE flag can only be removed if the file is > not currently mapped and caller has CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE. > > A flag like this /should/ make it possible to avoid fsync/msync() on > a file for existing filesystems, but it also means that such files > have significant management issues (hence the need for > CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE to cover it's use). Hmmm... I started to ponder such a flag, but ran into some questions. If it's PMEM_IMMUTABLE, does this mean that none of 1-6 apply if the filesystem discovers it isn't on pmem? I thought about just having a 'immutable metadata' flag where any timestamp, xattr, or block mapping update just returns EPERM. There wouldn't be any checks as in (1); if you left a hole in the file prior to setting the flag then you won't be filling it unless you clear the flag. OTOH if it merely made the metadata unchangeable then it's a stretch to get to non-mmap data accesses also being disallowed. Maybe the immutable metadata and mmap-only properties would only be implied if both DAX and IMMUTABLE_META are set on a file? Ok no more rambling until sleep. :) --D > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Re: DAX mapping detection (was: Re: [PATCH] Fix region lost in /proc/self/smaps) Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-09-12 03:50 +0200
Re: DAX mapping detection (was: Re: [PATCH] Fix region lost in /proc/self/smaps) "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com> - 2016-09-15 08:00 +0200
Re: DAX mapping detection (was: Re: [PATCH] Fix region lost in /proc/self/smaps) Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> - 2016-09-15 08:30 +0200
csiph-web