Received: by 2002:ac0:946b:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id j40csp4352200imj; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 14:27:48 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AHgI3IZIH0V/jA/QilhgCMABc/tm83bWcKnxI9k34x9lH9tNwka8XE60dfcF4nZ4LlSzcf2kMSXK X-Received: by 2002:a62:b15:: with SMTP id t21mr6420545pfi.136.1550010468017; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 14:27:48 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1550010468; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=K4Qd0Xy8d51CUeSAL1l33ZbV2bw1SGZObOr7W/UEL2h7tM4H6uTdqqQvu1Z6j6fkpH TZ1+sqWGe+9hjgNGryFRcdBKeJol127vOU7VyMR8NlStl9YappzHZVkRBdypbm9DCyHl jE3LVdR4Y9mK3o0eGgg4sz1OL45C/G109yEiAQdy4NpYtJC/zAQghn2BJhdmF/mF8BDI NpQu3EvpDqeIhx5SLGd5tUozontXDGQx4rQf4YP6q/aEBofNe9vw+a/j1Ak7v+kXgK99 KjtmP+K87qcM/sCo6Bk7aCQkZw+URWkHiLzFx48HYzsbAqeO0iN+vp/tXwZ+sFEYhlaR GHKw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=LEY0p2JsVS3a2cs2tzozqI6GCoofE/g5BNWFzUCn+cU=; b=XphOBlgoo1SVH57FQ84uyKdz6mpIsIItrFz6r0j3zQQSCmBXA0Ir6UbJYPuXRCSp1u eHJf/Tl5zI5FXm6E1VSdkIiQduCAsQeRCc9rkujBgSZcbda2uJGZDD1xJ15G8z+ShOVD FXYSAOBzv51Tx9xuaftZyLFUYZ8PlgIAvJyTBzUU1BOp6LsxhT9myw6sGxK2EHR+8sar jIuAx3A0fVb/x9ncvYYcu4FLlFcBLB186ulMI7c9OyUyr+S3/f1wu8cvXNQb4eejvIA1 XuYxxLcYbm7lClxCGdiS/+dbin9wKdHLoeC5G6UXrcjzbHY1whpuopPuiwPbmTBnzHXg K9Mw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=sLIBRlBc; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id b136si7863332pfb.165.2019.02.12.14.27.31; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 14:27:48 -0800 (PST) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=sLIBRlBc; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=intel.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732408AbfBLVxl (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:53:41 -0500 Received: from mail-ot1-f65.google.com ([209.85.210.65]:35114 "EHLO mail-ot1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728454AbfBLVxl (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2019 16:53:41 -0500 Received: by mail-ot1-f65.google.com with SMTP id z19so471798otm.2 for ; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 13:53:40 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=LEY0p2JsVS3a2cs2tzozqI6GCoofE/g5BNWFzUCn+cU=; b=sLIBRlBc+Y8VcrK+ShKJOL8wF5wcZGUpE1b1zS7aKUuoEfelW/Xnsh4EIoEEJd+AkB YO7N/Fuqlg4tH7X3nxrOEPc9skJp55kuBARmO6xshNmL3uRFAUbbKRj3SKqKlvWtGhu/ oIKEsZ0qzAzQzCFTO05o8oAJ31m5M4gqYsHJ74U04N9h8TN4ZkBM/szhAR0WQVBTmn0M 1FIovxk+90qqM8dr4fx/aDrW28KbxobMUMiX3U+94G4Y/ADcXYEGIZMadw3b0rXOBGci dv7Dq/MKHmrhbPTOgzRELvXXowa8lWX/WM0oqsF3p9M9aZ4dOItgGpntqqd92jEjHZmO pJLw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=LEY0p2JsVS3a2cs2tzozqI6GCoofE/g5BNWFzUCn+cU=; b=r569nxun3o6+rZBZUbPYO/DoSVrZlp6Mr80IFPyt00D3gL4xPTkyndh1IN6dMwE3GP JhTo65Ml0m+bEgO5AMMwyBq3HO2BHtB5i6e7cuj6D1BaJoErH8fnwhx/WeCLLAj1hugi FHsymaJxPDqC+MzLxfv+FxZHcapUoEe6WEW6Zo1xPERmLIj77Bh5gBn/IgnbarrDtC6t 6v7mBZ0iJhkkDAzuxe1wn5Hp8XyJnKFaYEcGSHGB/diabY+mMew8KmHIrNQg1PBvOnin FaO9oYUlAcGOHXBR3LT9TUIMyRlzUBlFdCin1fSuUUjluFVL1apxZQXKdNQiu0/YCS9y fPWQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AHQUAuaTO0PPziy8FlWlpTwohgSTxZaL8fKo/3WzlCVIxQOOkcowjE6/ xfQKpyHTKTFlXO93I2dp7L6NrhZY4JQ7yQPYx5KYaw== X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7493:: with SMTP id t19mr5757624otk.98.1550008419886; Tue, 12 Feb 2019 13:53:39 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20190206220828.GJ12227@ziepe.ca> <0c868bc615a60c44d618fb0183fcbe0c418c7c83.camel@redhat.com> <01000168c8e2de6b-9ab820ed-38ad-469c-b210-60fcff8ea81c-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20190208044302.GA20493@dastard> <20190208111028.GD6353@quack2.suse.cz> <20190211102402.GF19029@quack2.suse.cz> <20190212160707.GA19076@quack2.suse.cz> In-Reply-To: <20190212160707.GA19076@quack2.suse.cz> From: Dan Williams Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2019 13:53:28 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Discuss least bad options for resolving longterm-GUP usage by RDMA To: Jan Kara Cc: Dave Chinner , Christopher Lameter , Doug Ledford , Jason Gunthorpe , Matthew Wilcox , Ira Weiny , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-rdma , Linux MM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , John Hubbard , Jerome Glisse , Michal Hocko Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 8:07 AM Jan Kara wrote: > > On Mon 11-02-19 09:22:58, Dan Williams wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 2:24 AM Jan Kara wrote: > > > > > > On Fri 08-02-19 12:50:37, Dan Williams wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 3:11 AM Jan Kara wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri 08-02-19 15:43:02, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 04:55:37PM +0000, Christopher Lameter wrote: > > > > > > > One approach that may be a clean way to solve this: > > > > > > > 3. Filesystems that allow bypass of the page cache (like XFS / DAX) will > > > > > > > provide the virtual mapping when the PIN is done and DO NO OPERATIONS > > > > > > > on the longterm pinned range until the long term pin is removed. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, ummm, how do we do block allocation then, which is done on > > > > > > demand during writes? > > > > > > > > > > > > IOWs, this requires the application to set up the file in the > > > > > > correct state for the filesystem to lock it down so somebody else > > > > > > can write to it. That means the file can't be sparse, it can't be > > > > > > preallocated (i.e. can't contain unwritten extents), it must have zeroes > > > > > > written to it's full size before being shared because otherwise it > > > > > > exposes stale data to the remote client (secure sites are going to > > > > > > love that!), they can't be extended, etc. > > > > > > > > > > > > IOWs, once the file is prepped and leased out for RDMA, it becomes > > > > > > an immutable for the purposes of local access. > > > > > > > > > > > > Which, essentially we can already do. Prep the file, map it > > > > > > read/write, mark it immutable, then pin it via the longterm gup > > > > > > interface which can do the necessary checks. > > > > > > > > > > Hum, and what will you do if the immutable file that is target for RDMA > > > > > will be a source of reflink? That seems to be currently allowed for > > > > > immutable files but RDMA store would be effectively corrupting the data of > > > > > the target inode. But we could treat it similarly as swapfiles - those also > > > > > have to deal with writes to blocks beyond filesystem control. In fact the > > > > > similarity seems to be quite large there. What do you think? > > > > > > > > This sounds so familiar... > > > > > > > > https://lwn.net/Articles/726481/ > > > > > > > > I'm not opposed to trying again, but leases was what crawled out > > > > smoking crater when this last proposal was nuked. > > > > > > Umm, don't think this is that similar to daxctl() discussion. We are not > > > speaking about providing any new userspace API for this. > > > > I thought explicit userspace API was one of the outcomes, i.e. that we > > can't depend on this behavior being an implicit side effect of a page > > pin? > > I was thinking an implicit sideeffect of gup_longterm() call. Similarly as > swapon(2) does not require the file to be marked in any special way. But > OTOH I agree that RDMA is a less controlled usage than swapon so it is > questionable. I'd still require something like CAP_LINUX_IMMUTABLE at least > for gup_longterm() calls that end up pinning the file. > > Inspired by Christoph's idea you reference in [2], maybe gup_longterm() > will succeed only if there is FL_LAYOUT lease for the range being pinned > and we don't allow the lease to be released until there's a pinned page in > the range. And we make the file protected (i.e. treat it like swapfile) if > there's any such lease in it. But this is just a rough sketch and needs more > thinking. > > > > Also I think the > > > situation about leases has somewhat cleared up with this discussion - ODP > > > hardware does not need leases since it can use MMU notifiers, for non-ODP > > > hardware it is difficult to handle leases as such hardware has only one big > > > kill-everything call and using that would effectively mean lot of work on > > > the userspace side to resetup everything to make things useful if workable > > > at all. > > > > > > So my proposal would be: > > > > > > 1) ODP hardward uses gup_fast() like direct IO and uses MMU notifiers to do > > > its teardown when fs needs it. > > > > > > 2) Hardware not capable of tearing down pins from MMU notifiers will have > > > to use gup_longterm() (we may actually rename it to a more suitable name). > > > FS may just refuse such calls (for normal page cache backed file, it will > > > just return success but for DAX file it will do sanity checks whether the > > > file is fully allocated etc. like we currently do for swapfiles) but if > > > gup_longterm() returns success, it will provide the same guarantees as for > > > swapfiles. So the only thing that we need is some call from gup_longterm() > > > to a filesystem callback to tell it - this file is going to be used by a > > > third party as an IO buffer, don't touch it. And we can (and should) > > > probably refactor the handling to be shared between swapfiles and > > > gup_longterm(). > > > > Yes, lets pursue this. At the risk of "arguing past 'yes'" this is a > > solution I thought we dax folks walked away from in the original > > MAP_DIRECT discussion [1]. Here is where leases were the response to > > MAP_DIRECT [2]. ...and here is where we had tame discussions about > > implications of notifying memory-registrations of lease break events > > [3]. > > Yeah, thanks for the references. > > > 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? > > So with requiring lease for gup_longterm() to succeed (and the > FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE failure being keyed from the existence of such lease), > does it look more reasonable to you? That sounds reasonable to me, just the small matter of teaching the non-ODP RDMA ecosystem to take out FL_LAYOUT leases and do something reasonable when the lease needs to be recalled. I would hope that RDMA-to-FSDAX-PMEM support is enough motivation to either make the necessary application changes, or switch to an ODP-capable adapter. Note that I think we need FL_LAYOUT regardless of whether the legacy-RDMA stack ever takes advantage of it. VFIO device passthrough to a guest that has a host DAX file mapped as physical PMEM in the guest needs guarantees that the guest will be killed and DMA force blocked by the IOMMU if someone punches a hole in memory in use by a guest, or otherwise have a paravirtualized driver in the guest to coordinate what effectively looks like a physical memory unplug event.