Message-ID: <CAPcyv4iOH4o_1mBh2a1jEqJZGxwki2FHqp8UM0Cj-ZCzHoxQWQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:44:55 -0700
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:     jmoyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc:     Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net>, zwisler@...nel.org,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ext2, ext4, xfs: hard fail dax mount on unsupported devices

On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:31 PM Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...deen.net> writes:
>
> > I've been thinking about the per-inode stuff a bit, and while I don't know
> > how to resolve some of the trickier issues, at least the expected behavior
> > seems like something we can narrow down and specify.
> >
> > Because it's an on-disk flag (in xfs today, in any case) it seems that
> > the only sane behavior to expect is either/or, i.e.:
> >
> > Mount option: All files always dax, per-inode flags ignored (or rejected)
> > Per-inode: Mount option cannot be specified; only inodes explicitly flagged are dax
> >
> > Think about it; what would mount-option-plus-per-inode mean?  We have
> > no "negative" dax flag, so while mount-option-with-flag surely means
> > "dax", what the heck does mount-option-without-flag mean, and how is it
> > distinguishable from mount option only?
> >
> > I submit that flags can only have meaning w/o the fs-wide mount option
> > enabled, so the question of "should we hard fail mount -o dax for devices
> > that cannot support it" seems to be orthogonal to the per-inode question.
> >
> > i.e. mount -o dax really can only mean "I want dax on everything" and so
> > again, I think we probably need to fail the mount if that can't be honored.
>
> I hate to even open up this can of worms, but what about killing the dax
> mount option?
>
> To quote Christoph:
>   How does an application "make use of DAX"?  What actual user visible
>   semantics are associated with a file that has this flag set?
>
> We're already talking about making caching decisions automatically, so
> does DAX even mean anything at that point?  If the storage and the file
> system support it, enable it.
>
> From what we've seen so far, aplications want:
> 1) to be able to make data persistent from userspace
>    For this, we have MAP_SYNC.
> 2) to determine whether or not page cache will be used
>    For this, we have O_DIRECT for read/write access, and MAP_SYNC for
>    mmap access (and maybe a third option coming, we'll see).

As Jan has said, it's not safe to assume that 'no page cache' is
implied with MAP_SYNC. It's a side effect not a contract of the
current implementation.

> The only thing users gain from a mount option is the ability to turn OFF
> dax.  I suppose there might be a use case that wants this, but I'm not
> aware of it.

I think we're stuck with it as many scripts would break if it ever
went completely away. However, we could mark it deprecated / ignored
provided we had a way for applications to query and override if DAX is
enabled. I also think it's important to keep separate the dax-mmap
behavior from the dax-read/write behavior. dax-mmap is where an
application would make different decisions if it can get a mapping
without page cache, dax-read/write does not appear to have any
justification to be advertised because the application would not do
anything different whether that is present or not.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists