Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:06:54 -0700
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
        lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Discuss least bad options for resolving
 longterm-GUP usage by RDMA
Message-ID: <20190211180654.GB24692@ziepe.ca>
References: <20190206220828.GJ12227@ziepe.ca>
 <0c868bc615a60c44d618fb0183fcbe0c418c7c83.camel@redhat.com>
 <CAPcyv4hqya1iKCfHJRXQJRD4qXZa3VjkoKGw6tEvtWNkKVbP+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <bfe0fdd5400d41d223d8d30142f56a9c8efc033d.camel@redhat.com>
 <01000168c8e2de6b-9ab820ed-38ad-469c-b210-60fcff8ea81c-000000@email.amazonses.com>
 <20190208044302.GA20493@dastard>
 <20190208111028.GD6353@quack2.suse.cz>
 <CAPcyv4iVtBfO8zWZU3LZXLqv-dha1NSG+2+7MvgNy9TibCy4Cw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20190211102402.GF19029@quack2.suse.cz>
 <CAPcyv4iHso+PqAm-4NfF0svoK4mELJMSWNp+vsG43UaW1S2eew@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4iHso+PqAm-4NfF0svoK4mELJMSWNp+vsG43UaW1S2eew@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 09:22:58AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:

> I honestly don't like the idea that random subsystems can pin down
> file blocks as a side effect of gup on the result of mmap. Recall that
> it's not just RDMA that wants this guarantee. It seems safer to have
> the file be in an explicit block-allocation-immutable-mode so that the
> fallocate man page can describe this error case. Otherwise how would
> you describe the scenarios under which FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE fails?

I rather liked CL's version of this - ftruncate/etc is simply racing
with a parallel pwrite - and it doesn't fail.

But it also doesnt' trucate/create a hole. Another thread wrote to it
right away and the 'hole' was essentially instantly reallocated. This
is an inherent, pre-existing, race in the ftrucate/etc APIs.

Jason