Re: KVM "fake DAX" flushing interface - discussion

[Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@redhat.com>]

> Subject: Re: KVM "fake DAX" flushing interface - discussion
> 
> On Mon 24-07-17 08:06:07, Pankaj Gupta wrote:
> > 
> > > On Sun 23-07-17 13:10:34, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > > On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 2017-07-23 at 09:01 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > > >> [ adding Ross and Jan ]
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 7:04 AM, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
> > > > >> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The goal is to increase density of guests, by moving page
> > > > >> > cache into the host (where it can be easily reclaimed).
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > If we assume the guests will be backed by relatively fast
> > > > >> > SSDs, a "whole device flush" from filesystem journaling
> > > > >> > code (issued where the filesystem issues a barrier or
> > > > >> > disk cache flush today) may be just what we need to make
> > > > >> > that work.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Ok, apologies, I indeed had some pieces of the proposal confused.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> However, it still seems like the storage interface is not capable of
> > > > >> expressing what is needed, because the operation that is needed is a
> > > > >> range flush. In the guest you want the DAX page dirty tracking to
> > > > >> communicate range flush information to the host, but there's no
> > > > >> readily available block i/o semantic that software running on top of
> > > > >> the fake pmem device can use to communicate with the host. Instead
> > > > >> you
> > > > >> want to intercept the dax_flush() operation and turn it into a
> > > > >> queued
> > > > >> request on the host.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> In 4.13 we have turned this dax_flush() operation into an explicit
> > > > >> driver call. That seems a better interface to modify than trying to
> > > > >> map block-storage flush-cache / force-unit-access commands to this
> > > > >> host request.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> The additional piece you would need to consider is whether to track
> > > > >> all writes in addition to mmap writes in the guest as DAX-page-cache
> > > > >> dirtying events, or arrange for every dax_copy_from_iter()
> > > > >> operation()
> > > > >> to also queue a sync on the host, but that essentially turns the
> > > > >> host
> > > > >> page cache into a pseudo write-through mode.
> > > > >
> > > > > I suspect initially it will be fine to not offer DAX
> > > > > semantics to applications using these "fake DAX" devices
> > > > > from a virtual machine, because the DAX APIs are designed
> > > > > for a much higher performance device than these fake DAX
> > > > > setups could ever give.
> > > > 
> > > > Right, we don't need DAX, per se, in the guest.
> > > > 
> > > > >
> > > > > Having userspace call fsync/msync like done normally, and
> > > > > having those coarser calls be turned into somewhat efficient
> > > > > backend flushes would be perfectly acceptable.
> > > > >
> > > > > The big question is, what should that kind of interface look
> > > > > like?
> > > > 
> > > > To me, this looks much like the dirty cache tracking that is done in
> > > > the address_space radix for the DAX case, but modified to coordinate
> > > > queued / page-based flushing when the guest  wants to persist data.
> > > > The similarity to DAX is not storing guest allocated pages in the
> > > > radix but entries that track dirty guest physical addresses.
> > > 
> > > Let me check whether I understand the problem correctly. So we want to
> > > export a block device (essentially a page cache of this block device) to
> > > a
> > > guest as PMEM and use DAX in the guest to save guest's page cache. The
> > 
> > that's correct.
> > 
> > > natural way to make the persistence work would be to make ->flush
> > > callback
> > > of the PMEM device to do an upcall to the host which could then
> > > fdatasync()
> > > appropriate image file range however the performance would suck in such
> > > case since ->flush gets called for at most one page ranges from DAX.
> > 
> > Discussion is : sync a range using paravirt device or flush hit addresses
> > vs block device flush.
> > 
> > > 
> > > So what you could do instead is to completely ignore ->flush calls for
> > > the
> > > PMEM device and instead catch the bio with REQ_PREFLUSH flag set on the
> > > PMEM device (generated by blkdev_issue_flush() or the journalling
> > > machinery) and fdatasync() the whole image file at that moment - in fact
> > > you must do that for metadata IO to hit persistent storage anyway in your
> > > setting. This would very closely follow how exporting block devices with
> > > volatile cache works with KVM these days AFAIU and the performance will
> > > be
> > > the same.
> > 
> > yes 'blkdev_issue_flush' does set 'REQ_OP_WRITE | REQ_PREFLUSH' flags.
> > As per suggestions looks like block flushing device is way ahead.
> > 
> > If we do an asynchronous block flush at guest side(put current task in
> > wait queue till host side fdatasync completes) can solve the purpose? Or
> > do we need another paravirt device for this?
> 
> Well, even currently if you have PMEM device, you still have also a block
> device and a request queue associated with it and metadata IO goes through
> that path. So in your case you will have the same in the guest as a result
> of exposing virtual PMEM device to the guest and you just need to make sure
> this virtual block device behaves the same way as traditional virtualized
> block devices in KVM in respose to 'REQ_OP_WRITE | REQ_PREFLUSH' requests.

Looks like only way to send flush(blk dev) from guest to host with nvdimm
is using flush hint addresses. Is this the correct interface I am looking?

blkdev_issue_flush
 submit_bio_wait
  submit_bio
    generic_make_request
      pmem_make_request
      ...
           if (bio->bi_opf & REQ_FLUSH)
                nvdimm_flush(nd_region);

      ...

Thanks,
Pankaj
> 
> 								Honza
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
> SUSE Labs, CR
>