linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] pmem: enable REQ_FUA/REQ

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 16 Nov 2015 13:09:50 -0700
From:	Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
To:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc:	Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
	Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
	X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, XFS Developers <xfs@....sgi.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/11] pmem: enable REQ_FUA/REQ_FLUSH handling

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 06:32:40PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:43 PM, Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca> wrote:
> > On Nov 13, 2015, at 5:20 PM, Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Ross Zwisler
> >> <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >>> Currently the PMEM driver doesn't accept REQ_FLUSH or REQ_FUA bios.  These
> >>> are sent down via blkdev_issue_flush() in response to a fsync() or msync()
> >>> and are used by filesystems to order their metadata, among other things.
> >>>
> >>> When we get an msync() or fsync() it is the responsibility of the DAX code
> >>> to flush all dirty pages to media.  The PMEM driver then just has issue a
> >>> wmb_pmem() in response to the REQ_FLUSH to ensure that before we return all
> >>> the flushed data has been durably stored on the media.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
> >>
> >> Hmm, I'm not seeing why we need this patch.  If the actual flushing of
> >> the cache is done by the core why does the driver need support
> >> REQ_FLUSH?  Especially since it's just a couple instructions.  REQ_FUA
> >> only makes sense if individual writes can bypass the "drive" cache,
> >> but no I/O submitted to the driver proper is ever cached we always
> >> flush it through to media.
> >
> > If the upper level filesystem gets an error when submitting a flush
> > request, then it assumes the underlying hardware is broken and cannot
> > be as aggressive in IO submission, but instead has to wait for in-flight
> > IO to complete.
> 
> Upper level filesystems won't get errors when the driver does not
> support flush.  Those requests are ended cleanly in
> generic_make_request_checks().  Yes, the fs still needs to wait for
> outstanding I/O to complete but in the case of pmem all I/O is
> synchronous.  There's never anything to await when flushing at the
> pmem driver level.
> 
> > Since FUA/FLUSH is basically a no-op for pmem devices,
> > it doesn't make sense _not_ to support this functionality.
> 
> Seems to be a nop either way.  Given that DAX may lead to dirty data
> pending to the device in the cpu cache that a REQ_FLUSH request will
> not touch, its better to leave it all to the mm core to handle.  I.e.
> it doesn't make sense to call the driver just for two instructions
> (sfence + pcommit) when the mm core is taking on the cache flushing.
> Either handle it all in the mm or the driver, not a mixture.

Does anyone know if ext4 and/or XFS alter their algorithms based on whether
the driver supports REQ_FLUSH/REQ_FUA?  Will the filesystem behave more
efficiently with respect to their internal I/O ordering, etc., if PMEM
advertises REQ_FLUSH/REQ_FUA support, even though we could do the same thing
at the DAX layer?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html