Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 21 Aug 2019 15:13:43 -0300
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
Cc:     Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-)
Message-ID: <20190821181343.GH8653@ziepe.ca>
References: <20190814180848.GB31490@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20190815130558.GF14313@quack2.suse.cz>
 <20190816190528.GB371@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20190817022603.GW6129@dread.disaster.area>
 <20190819063412.GA20455@quack2.suse.cz>
 <20190819092409.GM7777@dread.disaster.area>
 <20190819123841.GC5058@ziepe.ca>
 <20190820011210.GP7777@dread.disaster.area>
 <20190820115515.GA29246@ziepe.ca>
 <20190821180200.GA5965@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20190821180200.GA5965@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:02:00AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 08:55:15AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:12:10AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 09:38:41AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 07:24:09PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > So that leaves just the normal close() syscall exit case, where the
> > > > > application has full control of the order in which resources are
> > > > > released. We've already established that we can block in this
> > > > > context.  Blocking in an interruptible state will allow fatal signal
> > > > > delivery to wake us, and then we fall into the
> > > > > fatal_signal_pending() case if we get a SIGKILL while blocking.
> > > > 
> > > > The major problem with RDMA is that it doesn't always wait on close() for the
> > > > MR holding the page pins to be destoyed. This is done to avoid a
> > > > deadlock of the form:
> > > > 
> > > >    uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw()
> > > >       mutex_lock()
> > > >        [..]
> > > >         mmput()
> > > >          exit_mmap()
> > > >           remove_vma()
> > > >            fput();
> > > >             file_operations->release()
> > > 
> > > I think this is wrong, and I'm pretty sure it's an example of why
> > > the final __fput() call is moved out of line.
> > 
> > Yes, I think so too, all I can say is this *used* to happen, as we
> > have special code avoiding it, which is the code that is messing up
> > Ira's lifetime model.
> > 
> > Ira, you could try unraveling the special locking, that solves your
> > lifetime issues?
> 
> Yes I will try to prove this out...  But I'm still not sure this fully solves
> the problem.
> 
> This only ensures that the process which has the RDMA context (RDMA FD) is safe
> with regard to hanging the close for the "data file FD" (the file which has
> pinned pages) in that _same_ process.  But what about the scenario.

Oh, I didn't think we were talking about that. Hanging the close of
the datafile fd contingent on some other FD's closure is a recipe for
deadlock..

IMHO the pin refcnt is held by the driver char dev FD, that is the
object you need to make it visible against.

Why not just have a single table someplace of all the layout leases
with the file they are held on and the FD/socket/etc that is holding
the pin? Make it independent of processes and FDs?

Jason