[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200226111740.GF10728@quack2.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 12:17:40 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, ira.weiny@...el.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 07/13] fs: Add locking for a dynamic address space
operations state
On Tue 25-02-20 11:09:37, Dave Chinner wrote:
> /me wonders if the best thing to do is to add a ->fault callout to
> tell the filesystem to lock/unlock the inode right up at the top of
> the page fault path, outside even the mmap_sem. That means all the
> methods that the page fault calls are protected against S_DAX
> changes, and it gives us a low cost method of serialising page
> faults against DIO (e.g. via inode_dio_wait())....
Well, that's going to be pretty hard. The main problem is: you cannot
lookup VMA until you hold mmap_sem and the inode is inside the VMA. And
this is a fundamental problem because until you hold mmap_sem, the address
space can change and thus the virtual address you are faulting can be
changing inode it is mapped to. So you would have to do some dance like:
lock mmap_sem
lookup vma
get inode reference
drop mmap_sem
tell fs about page fault
lock mmap_sem
is the vma still the same?
And I'm pretty confident the overhead will be visible in page fault
intensive workloads...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists