Date:   Mon, 04 Jun 2018 10:44:15 +0900
From:   Yasunori Goto <y-goto@...fujitsu.com>
To:     Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
        NVDIMM-ML <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Question about Experimental of Filesystem DAX.

> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 11:26:43AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Darrick J. Wong
> > <darrick.wong@...cle.com> wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 09:29:15AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > >> On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 8:07 AM, Ross Zwisler
> > >> <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >> > On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 11:27:33AM +0900, Yasunori Goto wrote:
> > >> >> Hello,
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I would like to know about the Experimental message of Filesystem DAX.
> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------
> > >> >> DAX enabled. Warning: EXPERIMENTAL, use at your own risk
> > >> >> --------------------------------------------------------
> > >> >>
> > >> >> AFAIK, the final issue of Filesystem DAX is metadata update problem,
> > >> >> and it is(will be?) solved by great effort of MAP_SYNC and
> > >> >> "fix dma vs truncate/hole-punch" patch set.
> > >> >> So, I suppose that the Experimental message can be removed,
> > >> >> but I'm not sure.
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Is it possible?
> > >> >> Otherwise, are there any other issues in Filesystem DAX yet?
> > >> >>
> > >> >> If this is silly question, sorry for noise....
> > >> >>
> > >> >> Thanks,
> > >> >> ---
> > >> >> Yasunori Goto
> > >> >
> > >> > Adding in the XFS and ext4 developers, as it's really their call when to
> > >> > remove this notice.
> > >> >
> > >> > We've talked about this off and on for a long while, but IMHO we should remove
> > >> > the EXPERIMENTAL warning.  The last few things that we had on our TODO list
> > >> > before this was removed were:
> > >> >
> > >> > 1) Get consistent handling of the DAX mount option.  We currently have this,
> > >> > as both filesystems will behave the same and fall back and remove the DAX
> > >> > mount option if it is unsupported by the block device, etc.
> > >
> > > <nod>
> > >
> > > As an aside, I wonder if Christoph's musings about "just have the kernel
> > > determine the appropriate dax/non-dax setting from the acpi tables and
> > > skip the inode flag entirely" ever got resolved?
> > >
> > >> > 2) Get consistent handling of the DAX inode option.  We currently have this,
> > >> > as all DAX behavior now happens through the mount option.  If/when we
> > >> > re-enable the per-inode DAX flag we should do it consistently for all DAX
> > >> > enabled filesystems.
> > >
> > > The behavior of the inode flag isn't all that consistent.  ext4 doesn't
> > > support it at all.  On XFS, you can set or clear FS_XFLAG_DAX on a
> > > directory which will propagate the setting to any files created in that
> > > directory.
> > >
> > > However, if you set or clear it on a file we update the on-disk inode
> > > but we can't change the in-core state flag (S_DAX) until the next
> > > in-core inode instantiation.  It's weird that users can change the flag
> > > but the intended behavior changes won't happen until some ... time ...
> > > in the future??
> > >
> > >> > 3) Make DAX work with other XFS features like reflink, etc.  This one isn't
> > >> > done, but we at least disallow DAX with XFS features like reflink where it
> > >> > could be an issue.  Darrick, do you still feel like we need to get these
> > >> > working together to remove EXPERIMENTAL, or are you happy enough that we're
> > >> > keeping them separated and that we're keeping user data safe?
> > >
> > > Yes, reflink and dax still need to work together.  I've not heard any
> > > good arguments for why page sharing + copy on write are fundamentally
> > > incompatible with the dax model, or why dax users will never, ever
> > > require reflink.
> > 
> > Right, but that's separate from DAX being scream in your face
> > "EXPERIMENTAL!". It's just an additional feature that can be added on
> > once all the normal expectations of a userspace mapping work. I think
> > reliable rmap is the last of those requirements.
> > 
> > > The recent thread between Jan and Dan make me wonder if making mappings
> > > share struct pages is going to be a nightmare to add to the mm code,
> > > though...
> > 
> > It's going to be a bit messy because a singular page->mapping
> > association is fundamentally incompatible with DAX. Perhaps a linked
> > list of mapping "siblings"?
> > 
> > > Also: ideally XFS would also be able to consume poison event
> > > notifications from the pmem so that it can try to deal with metadata
> > > loss, but that's probably a separate effort.
> > 
> > Right, not a gating item for declaring DAX ready for prime time.
> 
> Yep, I think that the very loud EXPERIMENTAL message is essentially telling
> users "your data is at risk if you use this".  I totally agree that we still
> have lots of work to do.  However, I don't think that these feature
> enhancements should gate removal of the EXPERIMENTAL notice.   IMHO that
> should only exist as long as we have issues that we know could corrupt data,
> crash the box, etc.  As far as I know those are basically the 2 items on Dan's
> list from a few mails ago (poison recovery & DMA vs truncate).

Everyone,

Thank you very much for your information/opinions.
Not only about "experimental", I could understand what is still to do.

Thanks a lot!
---
Yasunori Goto

Powered by blists - more mailing lists