Date:	Wed, 18 May 2016 10:12:50 -0700
From:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>
Cc:	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
	"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] /dev/dax, core: file operations and dax-mmap

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 11:15:11AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> On 05/18/2016 11:10 AM, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> > On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 10:07:19AM +0200, Hannes Reinecke wrote:
> >> On 05/18/2016 12:19 AM, Dan Williams wrote:
> >>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 3:57 AM, Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de> wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 11:26:29PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >>>>> The "Device DAX" core enables dax mappings of performance / feature
> >>>>> differentiated memory.  An open mapping or file handle keeps the backing
> >>>>> struct device live, but new mappings are only possible while the device
> >>>>> is enabled.   Faults are handled under rcu_read_lock to synchronize
> >>>>> with the enabled state of the device.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Similar to the filesystem-dax case the backing memory may optionally
> >>>>> have struct page entries.  However, unlike fs-dax there is no support
> >>>>> for private mappings, or mappings that are not backed by media (see
> >>>>> use of zero-page in fs-dax).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mappings are always guaranteed to match the alignment of the dax_region.
> >>>>> If the dax_region is configured to have a 2MB alignment, all mappings
> >>>>> are guaranteed to be backed by a pmd entry.  Contrast this determinism
> >>>>> with the fs-dax case where pmd mappings are opportunistic.  If userspace
> >>>>> attempts to force a misaligned mapping, the driver will fail the mmap
> >>>>> attempt.  See dax_dev_check_vma() for other scenarios that are rejected,
> >>>>> like MAP_PRIVATE mappings.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cc: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
> >>>>> Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> >>>>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> >>>>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
> >>>>> Cc: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
> >>>>> ---
> >>>>>  drivers/dax/Kconfig |    1
> >>>>>  drivers/dax/dax.c   |  316 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >>>>>  mm/huge_memory.c    |    1
> >>>>>  mm/hugetlb.c        |    1
> >>>>>  4 files changed, 319 insertions(+)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/dax/Kconfig b/drivers/dax/Kconfig
> >>>>> index 86ffbaa891ad..cedab7572de3 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/dax/Kconfig
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/dax/Kconfig
> >>>>> @@ -1,6 +1,7 @@
> >>>>>  menuconfig DEV_DAX
> >>>>>       tristate "DAX: direct access to differentiated memory"
> >>>>>       default m if NVDIMM_DAX
> >>>>> +     depends on TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> >>>>>       help
> >>>>>         Support raw access to differentiated (persistence, bandwidth,
> >>>>>         latency...) memory via an mmap(2) capable character
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/dax/dax.c b/drivers/dax/dax.c
> >>>>> index 8207fb33a992..b2fe8a0ce866 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/dax/dax.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/dax/dax.c
> >>>>> @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ struct dax_region {
> >>>>>   * @region - parent region
> >>>>>   * @dev - device backing the character device
> >>>>>   * @kref - enable this data to be tracked in filp->private_data
> >>>>> + * @alive - !alive + rcu grace period == no new mappings can be established
> >>>>>   * @id - child id in the region
> >>>>>   * @num_resources - number of physical address extents in this device
> >>>>>   * @res - array of physical address ranges
> >>>>> @@ -57,6 +58,7 @@ struct dax_dev {
> >>>>>       struct dax_region *region;
> >>>>>       struct device *dev;
> >>>>>       struct kref kref;
> >>>>> +     bool alive;
> >>>>>       int id;
> >>>>>       int num_resources;
> >>>>>       struct resource res[0];
> >>>>> @@ -150,6 +152,10 @@ static void destroy_dax_dev(void *_dev)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>       dev_dbg(dev, "%s\n", __func__);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +     /* disable and flush fault handlers, TODO unmap inodes */
> >>>>> +     dax_dev->alive = false;
> >>>>> +     synchronize_rcu();

If you need to wait for fault handlers, you need synchronize_sched()
instead of synchronize_rcu().  Please note that synchronize_rcu() is
guaranteed to wait only for tasks that have done rcu_read_lock() to reach
the corresponding rcu_read_unlock().  In contrast, synchronize_sched()
is guaranteed to wait for any non-idle preempt-disable region of code
to complete, regardless of exactly what is disabling preemptiong.

And the "non-idle" is not an idle qualifier.  If you need to wait on fault
handlers that somehow occur from an idle hardware thread, you will need
those fault handlers to do rcu_irq_enter() on entry and rcu_irq_exit()
on exit.  (My guess is that you cannot take faults in the idle loop,
but I have learned not to trust such guesses all that far.)

And last, but definitely not least, synchronize_sched() waits only
for pre-existing preempt-disable regions of code.  So if you do
synchronize_sched(), and immediately after a fault handler starts,
synchronize_sched() won't necessarily wait on it.  However, you -are-
guaranteed that synchronize_shced() -will- wait for any fault handler
that might possibly see dax_dev->alive with a non-false value.

Are these the guarantees you are looking for?  (Yes, I did recently
watch "A New Hope".  Why do you ask?)

> >>>>> +
> >>>>
> >>>> IIRC RCU is only protecting a pointer, not the content of the pointer, so this
> >>>> looks wrong to me.

RCU can be, and usually is, used to protect pointers, but it can be and
sometimes is used for other things as well.  At its core, RCU is about
waiting for pre-existing RCU readers to complete.

> >>> The driver is using RCU to guarantee that all currently running fault
> >>> handlers have either completed or will see the new state of ->alive
> >>> when they start.  Reference counts are protecting the actual dax_dev
> >>> object.
> >>>
> >> Hmm.
> >> This is the same 'creative' RCU usage Mike Snitzer has been trying
> >> when trying to improve device-mapper performance.

To repeat, unless all your fault handlers begin with rcu_read_lock()
and end with rcu_read_unlock(), and as long as you don't care about not
waiting for fault handlers that are currently executing just before
the rcu_read_lock() and just after the rcu_read_unlock(), you need
synchronize_sched() rather than synchronize_rcu() for this job.

> >> >From my understanding RCU is protecting the _pointer_, not the
> >> values of the structure pointed to.
> >> IOW we are guaranteed to have a valid pointer at any time.
> >> But at the same time _no_ guarantee is made about the _contents_ of
> >> the structure.
> >> It might well be that using 'synchronize_rcu' giving you similar
> >> results (as synchronize_rcu() is essentially waiting a SMP grace
> >> period, after which all CPUs should be seeing the update).
> >> However, I haven't been able to find that this is a guaranteed
> >> behaviour.
> >> So from my understanding you have to use locking primitives
> >> protecting the contents of the structure or exchange the _entire_
> >> structure if you want to rely on RCU here.
> >>
> >> Can we get some clarification here?

Maybe...  What exactly is your synchronization design needing here?

> >> Paul?
> > 
> > I think you want the other Paul, Paul McKenney.
> > 
> I think you are in fact right.
> Sorry for the Paul-confusion :-)

Did I keep my end of the confusion up?  ;-)

								Thanx, Paul

Powered by blists - more mailing lists