[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20171023124427.10d15ee3@mschwideX1>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 12:44:27 +0200
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 02/13] dax: require 'struct page' for filesystem dax
On Mon, 23 Oct 2017 01:55:20 -0700
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 22, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Martin Schwidefsky
> <schwidefsky@...ibm.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, 20 Oct 2017 18:29:33 +0200
> > Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 08:23:02AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> >> > Yes, however it seems these drivers / platforms have been living with
> >> > the lack of struct page for a long time. So they either don't use DAX,
> >> > or they have a constrained use case that never triggers
> >> > get_user_pages(). If it is the latter then they could introduce a new
> >> > configuration option that bypasses the pfn_t_devmap() check in
> >> > bdev_dax_supported() and fix up the get_user_pages() paths to fail.
> >> > So, I'd like to understand how these drivers have been using DAX
> >> > support without struct page to see if we need a workaround or we can
> >> > go ahead delete this support. If the usage is limited to
> >> > execute-in-place perhaps we can do a constrained ->direct_access() for
> >> > just that case.
> >>
> >> For axonram I doubt anyone is using it any more - it was a very for
> >> the IBM Cell blades, which were produceѕ in a rather limited number.
> >> And Cell basically seems to be dead as far as I can tell.
> >>
> >> For S/390 Martin might be able to help out what the status of xpram
> >> in general and DAX support in particular is.
> >
> > The goes back to the time where DAX was called XIP. The initial design
> > point has been *not* to have struct pages for a large read-only memory
> > area. There is a block device driver for z/VM that maps a DCSS segment
> > somewhere in memore (no struct page!) with e.g. the complete /usr
> > filesystem. The xpram driver is a different beast and has nothing to
> > do with XIP/DAX.
> >
> > Now, if any there are very few users of the dcssblk driver out there.
> > The idea to save a few megabyte for /usr never really took of.
> >
> > We have to look at our get_user_pages() implementation to see how hard
> > it would be to make it fail if the target address is for an area without
> > struct pages.
>
> For read-only memory I think we can enable a subset of DAX, and
> explicitly turn off the paths that require get_user_pages(). However,
> I wonder if anyone has tested DAX with dcssblk because fork() requires
> get_user_pages()?
I did not test it recently, someone else might have. Gerald?
Looking at the code I see this in the s390 version of gup_pte_range:
mask = (write ? _PAGE_PROTECT : 0) | _PAGE_INVALID | _PAGE_SPECIAL;
...
if ((pte_val(pte) & mask) != 0)
return 0;
...
The XIP code used the pte_mkspecial mechanics to make it work. As far as
I can see the pfn_t_devmap returns true for the DAX mappins, yes?
Then I would say that dcssblk and DAX currently do not work together.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists