Date:	Tue, 3 Nov 2015 13:43:32 -0800
From:	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To:	Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 14/15] dax: dirty extent notification

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Ross Zwisler
<ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 07:51:31AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 11:20:49PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> > On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 9:40 PM, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 08:56:24PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> > >> No, we definitely can't do that.   I think your mental model of the
>> > >> cache flushing is similar to the disk model where a small buffer is
>> > >> flushed after a large streaming write.  Both Ross' patches and my
>> > >> approach suffer from the same horror that the cache flushing is O(N)
>> > >> currently, so we don't want to make it responsible for more data
>> > >> ranges areas than is strictly necessary.
>> > >
>> > > I didn't see anything that was O(N) in Ross's patches. What part of
>> > > the fsync algorithm that Ross proposed are you refering to here?
>> >
>> > We have to issue clflush per touched virtual address rather than a
>> > constant number of physical ways, or a flush-all instruction.
>> .....
>> > > So don't tell me that tracking dirty pages in the radix tree too
>> > > slow for DAX and that DAX should not be used for POSIX IO based
>> > > applications - it should be as fast as buffered IO, if not faster,
>> > > and if it isn't then we've screwed up real bad. And right now, we're
>> > > screwing up real bad.
>> >
>> > Again, it's not the dirty tracking in the radix I'm worried about it's
>> > looping through all the virtual addresses within those pages..
>>
>> So, let me summarise what I think you've just said. You are
>>
>> 1. fine with looping through the virtual addresses doing cache flushes
>>    synchronously when doing IO despite it having significant
>>    latency and performance costs.
>>
>> 2. Happy to hack a method into DAX to bypass the filesystems by
>>    pushing information to the block device for it to track regions that
>>    need cache flushes, then add infrastructure to the block device to
>>    track those dirty regions and then walk those addresses and issue
>>    cache flushes when the filesystem issues a REQ_FLUSH IO regardless
>>    of whether the filesystem actually needs those cachelines flushed
>>    for that specific IO?
>>
>> 3. Not happy to use the generic mm/vfs level infrastructure
>>    architectected specifically to provide the exact asynchronous
>>    cache flushing/writeback semantics we require because it will
>>    cause too many cache flushes, even though the number of cache
>>    flushes will be, at worst, the same as in 2).
>>
>>
>> 1) will work, but as we can see it is *slow*. 3) is what Ross is
>> implementing - it's a tried and tested architecture that all mm/fs
>> developers understand, and his explanation of why it will work for
>> pmem is pretty solid and completely platform/hardware architecture
>> independent.
>>
>> Which leaves this question: How does 2) save us anything in terms of
>> avoiding iterating virtual addresses and issuing cache flushes
>> over 3)? And is it sufficient to justify hacking a bypass into DAX
>> and the additional driver level complexity of having to add dirty
>> region tracking, flushing and cleaning to REQ_FLUSH operations?
>
> I also don't see a benefit of pushing this into the driver.  The generic
> writeback infrastructure that is already in place seems to fit perfectly with
> what we are trying to do.  I feel like putting the flushing infrastructure
> into the driver, as with my first failed attempt at msync support, ends up
> solving one aspect of the problem in a non-generic way that is ultimately
> fatally flawed.
>
> The driver inherently doesn't have enough information to solve this problem -
> we really do need to involve the filesystem and mm layers.  For example:
>
> 1) The driver can't easily mark regions as clean once they have been flushed,
> meaning that every time you dirty data you add to an ever increasing list of
> things that will be flushed on the next REQ_FLUSH.
>
> 2) The driver doesn't know how inodes map to blocks, so when you get a
> REQ_FLUSH for an fsync you end up flushing the dirty regions for *the entire
> block device*, not just the one inode.
>
> 3) The driver doesn't understand how mmap ranges map to block regions, so if
> someone msyncs a single page (causing a REQ_FLUSH) on a single mmap you will
> once again flush every region that has ever been dirtied on the entire block
> device.
>
> Each of these cases is handled by the existing writeback infrastructure.  I'm
> strongly in favor of waiting and solving this issue with the radix tree
> patches.

Again, all of these holes are mitigated by turning off DAX or fixing
the app.  The radix solution does nothing to address the worst case
flushing and will spin, single-threaded flushing the world.  So I
remain strongly against the core change, but that's ultimately not my
call.

Looks like we're leaving this broken for 4.4...
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists