Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220508143620.1775214-1-ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com>
 <20220511000352.GY27195@magnolia> <20220511014818.GE1098723@dread.disaster.area>
 <CAPcyv4h0a3aT3XH9qCBW3nbT4K3EwQvBSD_oX5W=55_x24-wFA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20220510192853.410ea7587f04694038cd01de@linux-foundation.org>
 <20220511024301.GD27195@magnolia> <20220510222428.0cc8a50bd007474c97b050b2@linux-foundation.org>
 <20220511151955.GC27212@magnolia>
In-Reply-To: <20220511151955.GC27212@magnolia>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 May 2022 08:46:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4gwV5ReuCUbJHZPVPUJjnaGFWibCLLsH-XEgyvbn9RkWA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHSETS] v14 fsdax-rmap + v11 fsdax-reflink
To:     "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Shiyang Ruan <ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux NVDIMM <nvdimm@lists.linux.dev>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
        Jane Chu <jane.chu@oracle.com>,
        Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.de>,
        Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>, linmiaohe@huawei.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 8:21 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> Oan Tue, May 10, 2022 at 10:24:28PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 May 2022 19:43:01 -0700 "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, May 10, 2022 at 07:28:53PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 10 May 2022 18:55:50 -0700 Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > It'll need to be a stable branch somewhere, but I don't think it
> > > > > > really matters where al long as it's merged into the xfs for-next
> > > > > > tree so it gets filesystem test coverage...
> > > > >
> > > > > So how about let the notify_failure() bits go through -mm this cycle,
> > > > > if Andrew will have it, and then the reflnk work has a clean v5.19-rc1
> > > > > baseline to build from?
> > > >
> > > > What are we referring to here?  I think a minimal thing would be the
> > > > memremap.h and memory-failure.c changes from
> > > > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20220508143620.1775214-4-ruansy.fnst@fujitsu.com ?
> > > >
> > > > Sure, I can scoot that into 5.19-rc1 if you think that's best.  It
> > > > would probably be straining things to slip it into 5.19.
> > > >
> > > > The use of EOPNOTSUPP is a bit suspect, btw.  It *sounds* like the
> > > > right thing, but it's a networking errno.  I suppose livable with if it
> > > > never escapes the kernel, but if it can get back to userspace then a
> > > > user would be justified in wondering how the heck a filesystem
> > > > operation generated a networking errno?
> > >
> > > <shrug> most filesystems return EOPNOTSUPP rather enthusiastically when
> > > they don't know how to do something...
> >
> > Can it propagate back to userspace?
>
> AFAICT, the new code falls back to the current (mf_generic_kill_procs)
> failure code if the filesystem doesn't provide a ->memory_failure
> function or if it returns -EOPNOSUPP.  mf_generic_kill_procs can also
> return -EOPNOTSUPP, but all the memory_failure() callers (madvise, etc.)
> convert that to 0 before returning it to userspace.
>
> I suppose the weirder question is going to be what happens when madvise
> starts returning filesystem errors like EIO or EFSCORRUPTED when pmem
> loses half its brains and even the fs can't deal with it.

Even then that notification is not in a system call context so it
would still result in a SIGBUS notification not a EOPNOTSUPP return
code. The only potential gap I see are what are the possible error
codes that MADV_SOFT_OFFLINE might see? The man page is silent on soft
offline failure codes. Shiyang, that's something to check / update if
necessary.