Re: [PATCH V10 00/10] famfs: port into fuse

John Groves
2026-04-14T23:53:52Z

On 26/04/14 11:57AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2026 at 08:41:42AM -0500, John Groves wrote:
> > On 26/04/14 03:19PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > > On Fri, 10 Apr 2026 at 21:44, Joanne Koong <joannelkoong@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Overall, my intention with bringing this up is just to make sure we're
> > > > at least aware of this alternative before anything is merged and
> > > > permanent. If Miklos and you think we should land this series, then
> > > > I'm on board with that.
> > >
> > > TBH, I'd prefer not to add the famfs specific mapping interface if not
> > > absolutely necessary. This was the main sticking point originally,
> > > but there seemed to be no better alternative.
> > >
> > > However with the bpf approach this would be gone, which is great.
>
> Well... you can't get away with having *no* mapping interface at all.
> You still have to define a UABI that BPF programs can use to convey
> mapping data into fsdax/iomap. BTF is a nice piece of work that smooths
> over minor fluctuations in struct layout between a running kernel and
> a precompiled BPF program, but fundamentally we still need a fuse-native
> representation.

A couple of points here, that are really top level observations.

The call path from fuse into famfs largely looks like:

if (passthrough)
return passthrough_call()
else if (virtiofs)
return virtiofs_call()
else if (famfs)
return famfs_call()

So from a hooking in standpoint I was trying to be compliant.

Second point: iomap is an overloaded term. The famfs iomap usage is stolen
from xfs' fs-dax iomap call patterns. I *think* that is distinct from the
stuff called iomap that handles block I/O. Because maybe not everybody who
reads this will understand that famfs is, uh, kinda like hugetlbfs except
that the memory is from devdax (in 'famfs' mode, because the old mode
stopped working for file-backed maps. Famfs files are never sparse, and
they never use the page cache - which is super, super different from a
conventional file system.

the famfs_filemap_fault() path calls dax_iomap_fault() path (which I added
to devdax in the new famfs mode, because it was in pmem but not devdax)
always just updates a page table beause the page is always present. That
means that the fault path is SUPER PERFORMANCE CRITICAL because in heavy
use there can be millions of these faults per second - and with famfs there
is NEVER EVER a read from storage to amortize the call overhead over.

This is a super-important point. famfs_filemap_fault() is a in the
vm_operations_struct. It is called to remind the CPU where an address maps
to, because the TLB and PTE had been purged (which happens ALL THE TIME).

The ask here is to insert a BPF program as a vma fault handler. Can it work?
Probably. Will it perform? I HAVE NO IDEA, BUT THERE ARE REASONS TO WORRY
THAT IT MIGHT NOT.

I don't think this suggestion was made from a full understanding of the
performance requirements of this code path.

This is why we need a discussion with fs/mm/bpf experts. We should be able
to assemble an understanding of what the overhead of calling the BPF program
are and how many nanoseconds (or microseconds) that could possibly add.
Anything longer than the current famfs_filemap_fault() path is potentially
disastrous because the whole point of famfs is to expose memory via files,
and avoid sabotaging the performance.

An L3 cache miss costs 100ns in round numbers on fast local DRAM, and
3-5x as long on switched disaggregated memory. We cannot afford an expensive
code path resolving these mappings.

This is why, at the last two LSFMMs and in the famfs documentation, I said
things like "we're exposing memory, and it must run at memory speeds".

Famfs also registers with the memory provider (devdax in famfs mode) to
receive notifications of memory failures, and uses a 'holder_operations'
pattern copied from pmem. This stuff is not in generic iomap (correct me
if that's wrong).

And finally since I've core dumped quite a bit here, I'll go ahead and add
a thought experiment that *might* rule out using a BPF program as a vma
fault handler. Could we do that with hugetlbfs without damaging performance
for memory-intensive workloads? Hugetlbfs is a pretty solid stand-in for
famfs: it never does data-movement faults, it's never sparse, and it needs
to resolve TLB/PTE/PMD/PUD faults FAST.

>
> That last sentence was an indirect way of saying: No, we're not going
> to export struct iomap to userspace. The fuse-iomap patchset provides
> all the UABI pieces we need for regular filesystems (ext4) and hardware
> adjacent filesystems (famfs) to exchange file mapping data with the
> kernel. This has been out for review since last October, but the lack
> of engagement with that patchset (or its February resubmission) doesn't
> leave me with confidence that any of it is going anywhere.
>
> Note: The reason for bolting BPF atop fuse-iomap is so that famfs can
> upload bpf programs to generate interleaved mappings. It's not so hard
> to convert famfs' iomapping paths to use fuse-iomap, but I haven't
> helped him do that because:
>
> a) I have no idea what Miklos' thoughts are about merging any of the
> famfs stuff.
>
> b) I also have no idea what his thoughts are about fuse-iomap. The
> sparse replies are not encouraging.
>
> c) It didn't seem fair to John to make him take on a whole new patchset
> dependency given (a) and (b).
>
> d) Nobody ever replied to my reply to the LSFMM thread about "can we do
> some code review of fuse iomap without waiting three months for LSFMM?"
> I've literally done nothing with fuse-iomap for two of the three months
> requested.
>
> > > So let us please at least have a try at this. I'm not into bpf yet,
> > > but willing to learn.
>
> I sent out the patches to enable exactly this sort of experimentation
> two months ago, and have not received any responses:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/177188736765.3938194.6770791688236041940.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs/
>
> I would like to say this as gently as possible: I don't know what the
> problem here is, Miklos -- are you uninterested in the work? Do you
> have too many other things to do inside RH that you can't talk about?
> Is it too difficult to figure out how the iomap stuff fits into the rest
> of the fuse codebase? Do you need help from the rest of us to get
> reviews done? Is there something else with which I could help?
>
> Because ... over the past few years, many of my team's filesystem
> projects have endured monthslong review cycles and often fail to get
> merged. This has led to burnout and frustration among my teammates such
> that many of them chose to move on to other things. For the remaining
> people, it was very difficult to justify continuing headcount when
> progress on projects is so slow that individuals cannot achieve even one
> milestone per quarter on any project.
>
> There's now nobody left here but me.
>
> I'm not blaming you (Miklos) for any of this, but that is the current
> deplorable state of things.
>
> > > Thanks,
> > > Miklos
> >
> > Thanks for responding...
> >
> > My short response: Noooooooooo!!!!!!
> >
> > I very strongly object to making this a prerequisite to merging. This
> > is an untested idea that will certainly delay us by at least a couple
> > of merge windows when products are shipping now, and the existing approach
> > has been in circulation for a long time. It is TOO LATE!!!!!!
>
> /me notes that has "we're shipping so you have to merge it over peoples'
> concerns" rarely carries the day in LKML land, and has never ended well
> in the few cases that it happens. As Ted is fond of saying, this is a
> team sport, not an individual effort. Unfortunately, to abuse your
> sports metaphor, we all play for the ******* A's.

That's totally fair. This process has been very long and grueling, and I'm
not always thinking clearly.

>
> That said, you're clearly pissed at the goalposts changing yet again,
> and that's really not fair that we collectively keep moving them.
>
> It's a rotten situation that I could have even helped you to solve both
> our problems via fuse-iomap, but I just couldn't motivate myself to
> entwine our two projects until the technical direction questions got
> answered.
>
> > Famfs is not a science project, it's enablement for actual products and
> > early versions are available now!!!
> >
> > That doesn't mean we couldn't convert later IF THERE ARE NO HIDDEN PROBLEMS.
>
> Heck, the fuse command field is a u32. There are plenty of numberspace
> left, and the kernel can just *stop issuing them*.
>
> > What are the risks of converting to BPF?
> >
> > - I don't know how to do it - so it'll be slow (kinda like my fuse learning
> > curve cost about a year because this is not that similar to anything
> > else that was already in fuse.
>
> ...and per above, BPF isn't some magic savior that avoids the expansion
> of the UABI.
>
> > - Those of us who are involved don't fully understand either the security
> > or performance implications of this. It
>
> Correct. I sure think it's swell that people can inject IR programs
> that jit/link into the kernel. Don't ask which secondary connotation of
> "swell" I'm talking about.
>
> > - Famfs is enabling access to memory and mapping fault handling must be
> > at "memory speed". We know that BPF walks some data structures when a
> > program executes. That exposes us to additional serialized L3 cache
> > misses each time we service a mapping fault (any TLB & page table miss).
> > This should be studied side-by-side with the existing approach under
> > multiple loads before being adopted for production.
>
> Yes, it should. AFAICT if one switched to a per-inode bpf program, then
> you could do per-inode bpf programs. Then you don't even need the bpf
> map, and the ->iomap_begin becomes an indirect call into JITted x86_64
> math code.
>
> (The downside is that dyn code can't be meaningfully signed, requires
> clang on the system, and you have to deal with inode eviction issues.)
>
> > - This has never been done in production, and we're throwing it in the way
> > of a project that has been soaking for years and needs to support early
> > shipments of products.
>
> Correct. I haven't even implemented BPF-iomap for fuse4fs. This BPF
> integration stuff is *highly* experimental code.
>
> > If this is the only path, I'd like to revive famfs as a standalone file
> > system. I'm still maintaining that and it's still in use.
>
> Honestly, you should probably just ship that to your users. As long as
> the ondisk format doesn't change much, switching the implementation at a
> later date is at least still possible.
>
> --D

And apologies to the polite universe for being a bit raw earlier. Getting
this far has been quite a grind...

Thanks,
John