Re: [PATCH 6/7] mm, fs: introduce file_operations->post_mmap()

[Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>]

On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 01:35:27PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 26-09-17 14:41:53, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 2:06 PM, Ross Zwisler
> > <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:19:21PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > >> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:57 AM, Ross Zwisler
> > > <>
> > >> > This decision can only be made (in this
> > >> > proposed scheme) *after* the inode->i_mapping->i_mmap  tree has been
> > >> > populated, which means we need another call into the filesystem after this
> > >> > insertion has happened.
> > >>
> > >> I get that, but it seems over-engineered and something that can also
> > >> be safely cleaned up after the fact by the code path that is disabling
> > >> DAX.
> > >
> > > I don't think you can safely clean it up after the fact because some thread
> > > might have already called ->mmap() to set up the vma->vm_flags for their new
> > > mapping, but they haven't added it to inode->i_mapping->i_mmap.
> > 
> > If madvise(MADV_NOHUGEPAGE) can dynamically change vm_flags, then the
> > DAX disable path can as well. VM_MIXEDMAP looks to be a nop for normal
> > memory mappings.
> > 
> > > The inode->i_mapping->i_mmap tree is the only way (that I know of at least)
> > > that the filesystem has any idea about about the mapping.  This is the method
> > > by which we would try and clean up mapping flags, if we were to do so, and
> > > it's the only way that the filesystem can know whether or not mappings exist.
> > >
> > > The only way that I could think of to make this safely work is to have the
> > > insertion into the inode->i_mapping->i_mmap tree be our sync point.  After
> > > that the filesystem and the mapping code can communicate on the state of DAX,
> > > but before that I think it's basically indeterminate.
> > 
> > If we lose the race and leak VM_HUGEPAGE to a non-DAX mapping what
> > breaks? I'd rather be in favor of not setting VM_HUGEPAGE at all in
> > the ->mmap() handler and let the default THP policy take over. In
> > fact, see transparent_hugepage_enabled() we already auto-enable huge
> > page support for dax mappings regardless of VM_HUGEPAGE.
> 
> Hum, this is an interesting option. So do you suggest that filesystems
> supporting DAX would always setup mappings with VM_MIXEDMAP and without
> VM_HUGEPAGE and thus we'd get rid of dependency on S_DAX flag in ->mmap?
> That could actually work. The only possible issue I can see is that
> VM_MIXEDMAP is still slightly different from normal page mappings and it
> could have some performance implications - e.g. copy_page_range() does more
> work on VM_MIXEDMAP mappings but not on normal page mappings.

It looks like having VM_MIXEDMAP always set for filesystems that support DAX
might affect their memory's NUMA migration in the non-DAX case? 

8e76d4e sched, numa: do not hint for NUMA balancing on VM_MIXEDMAP mappings
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm