[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200921120301.GD8409@ziepe.ca>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 09:03:01 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Maya B . Gokhale" <gokhale2@...l.gov>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Marty Mcfadden <mcfadden8@...l.gov>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: Trial do_wp_page() simplification
On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:35:05AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > My thinking is to hit this issue you have to already be doing
> > FOLL_LONGTERM, and if some driver hasn't been properly marked and
> > regresses, the fix is to mark it.
> >
> > Remember, this use case requires the pin to extend after a system
> > call, past another fork() system call, and still have data-coherence.
> >
> > IMHO that can only happen in the FOLL_LONGTERM case as it inhernetly
> > means the lifetime of the pin is being controlled by userspace, not by
> > the kernel. Otherwise userspace could not cause new DMA touches after
> > fork.
>
> I agree that the new aggressive COW behavior is probably causing issues
> only for FOLL_LONGTERM users. That being said it would be nice if even
> ordinary threaded FOLL_PIN users would not have to be that careful about
> fork(2) and possible data loss due to COW - we had certainly reports of
> O_DIRECT IO loosing data due to fork(2) and COW exactly because it is very
> subtle how it behaves... But as I wrote above this is not urgent since that
> problematic behavior exists since the beginning of O_DIRECT IO in Linux.
Yes, I agree - what I was thinking is to do this FOLL_LONGTERM for the
rc and then a small patch to make it wider for the next cycle so it
can test in linux-next for a responsible time period.
Interesting to hear you confirm block has also seen subtle user
problems with this as well.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists