On Sun 13-08-17 13:31:45, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 13, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Christoph Hellwig <h...@lst.de> wrote:
> > Thay being said I think we absolutely should support RDMA memory
> > registrations for DAX mappings.  I'm just not sure how S_IOMAP_IMMUTABLE
> > helps with that.  We'll want a MAP_SYNC | MAP_POPULATE to make sure
> > all the blocks are polulated and all ptes are set up.  Second we need
> > to make sure get_user_page works, which for now means we'll need a
> > struct page mapping for the region (which will be really annoying
> > for PCIe mappings, like the upcoming NVMe persistent memory region),
> > and we need to gurantee that the extent mapping won't change while
> > the get_user_pages holds the pages inside it.  I think that is true
> > due to side effects even with the current DAX code, but we'll need to
> > make it explicit.  And maybe that's where we need to converge -
> > "sealing" the extent map makes sense as such a temporary measure
> > that is not persisted on disk, which automatically gets released
> > when the holding process exits, because we sort of already do this
> > implicitly.  It might also make sense to have explicitl breakable
> > seals similar to what I do for the pNFS blocks kernel server, as
> > any userspace RDMA file server would also need those semantics.
> 
> Ok, how about a MAP_DIRECT flag that arranges for faults to that range to:
> 
>     1/ only succeed if the fault can be satisfied without page cache
> 
>     2/ only install a pte for the fault if it can do so without
> triggering block map updates
> 
> So, I think it would still end up setting an inode flag to make
> xfs_bmapi_write() fail while any process has a MAP_DIRECT mapping
> active. However, it would not record that state in the on-disk
> metadata and it would automatically clear at munmap time. That should
> be enough to support the host-persistent-memory, and
> NVMe-persistent-memory use cases (provided we have struct page for
> NVMe). Although, we need more safety infrastructure in the NVMe case
> where we would need to software manage I/O coherence.

Hum, this proposal (and the problems you are trying to deal with) seem very
similar to Peter Zijlstra's mpin() proposal from 2014 [1], just moved to
the DAX area (and so additionally complicated by the fact that filesystems
now have to care). The patch set was not merged due to lack of interest I
think but it looked sensible and the proposed API would make sense for more
stuff than just DAX so maybe it would be better than MAP_DIRECT flag?

[1] https://lwn.net/Articles/600502/

                                                                Honza

-- 
Jan Kara <j...@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm

Reply via email to