Re: [PATCH 10/12] fs/dax: Properly refcount fs dax pages

Alistair Popple
2024-10-30T05:57:28Z

Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> writes:

> Alistair Popple wrote:
> [..]
>
>> >> > It follows that that the DMA-idle condition still needs to look for the
>> >> > case where the refcount is > 1 rather than 0 since refcount == 1 is the
>> >> > page-mapped-but-DMA-idle condition.
>>
>> Because if the DAX page-cache holds a reference the refcount won't go to
>> zero until dax_delete_mapping_entry() is called. However this interface
>> seems really strange to me - filesystems call
>> dax_layout_busy_page()/dax_wait_page_idle() to make sure both user-space
>> and DMA[1] have finished with the page, but not the DAX code which still
>> has references in it's page-cache.
>
> First, I appreciate the clarification that I was mixing up "mapped"
> (elevated map count) with, for lack of a better term, "tracked" (mapping
> entry valid).
>
> So, to repeat back to you what I understand now, the proposal is to
> attempt to allow _count==0 as the DMA idle condition, but still have the
> final return of the block to the allocator (fs allocator) occur after
> dax_delete_mapping_entry().

Right, that is what I would like to achieve if possible. The outstanding
question I think is "should the DAX page-cache have a reference on the
page?". Or to use your terminology below "if a pfn is tracked should
pfn_to_page(pfn)->_refcount == 0 or 1?"

This version implements it as being zero because altering that requires
re-ordering all the existing filesystem and mm users of
dax_layout_busy_range() and dax_delete_mapping_entry(). Based on this
discussion though I'm beginning to think it probably should be one, but
I haven't been able to make that work yet.

>> Is there some reason for this? In order words why can't the interface to
>> the filesystem be something like calling dax_break_layouts() which
>> ensures everything, including core FS DAX code, has finished with the
>> page(s) in question? I don't see why that wouldn't work for at least
>> EXT4 and XFS (FUSE seemed a bit different but I haven't dug too deeply).
>>
>> If we could do that dax_break_layouts() would essentially:
>> 1. unmap userspace via eg. unmap_mapping_pages() to drive the refcount
>> down.
>
> Am I missing where unmap_mapping_pages() drops the _count? I can see
> where it drops _mapcount. I don't think that matters for the proposal,
> but that's my last gap in tracking the proposed refcount model.

It is suitably obtuse due to MMU_GATHER. unmap_mapping_pages() drops the
folio/page reference after flushing the TLB. Ie:

=> tlb_finish_mmu
=> tlb_flush_mmu
=> __tlb_batch_free_encoded_pages
=> free_pages_and_swap_cache
=> folios_put_refs

>> 2. delete the DAX page-cache entry to remove its refcount.
>> 3. wait for DMA to complete by waiting for the refcount to hit zero.
>>
>> The problem with the filesystem truncate code at the moment is steps 2
>> and 3 are reversed so step 3 has to wait for a refcount of 1 as you
>> pointed out previously. But does that matter? Are there ever cases when
>> a filesystem needs to wait for the page to be idle but maintain it's DAX
>> page-cache entry?
>
> No, not that I can think of. The filesystem just cares that the page was
> seen as part of the file at some point and that it is holding locks to
> keep the block associated with that page allocated to the file until it
> can complete its operation.
>
> I think what we are talking about is a pfn-state not a page state. If
> the block-pfn-page lifecycle from allocation to free is deconstructed as:
>
> block free
> block allocated
> pfn untracked
> pfn tracked
> page free
> page busy
> page free
> pfn untracked
> block free
>
> ...then I can indeed see cases where there is pfn metadata live even
> though the page is free.
>
> So I think I was playing victim to the current implementation that
> assumes that "pfn tracked" means the page is allocated and that
> pfn_to_folio(pfn)->mapping is valid and not NULL.
>
> All this to say I am at least on the same page as you that _count == 0
> can be used as the page free state even if the pfn tracking goes through
> delayed cleanup.

Great, and I like this terminology of pfn tracked, etc.

> However, if vmf_insert_XXX is increasing _count then, per my
> unmap_mapping_pages() question above, I think dax_wait_page_idle() needs
> to call try_to_unmap() to drop that _count, right?

At the moment filesystems open-code their own version of
XXXX_break_layouts() which typically calls dax_layout_busy_page()
followed by dax_wait_page_idle(). The former will call
unmap_mapping_range(), which for shared mappings I thought should be
sufficient to find and unmap all page table references (and therefore
folio/page _refcounts) based on the address space / index.

I think try_to_unmap() would only be neccessary if we only had the folio
and not the address space / index and therefore needed to find them from
the mm (not fs!) rmap.

> Similar observation for the memory_failure_dev_pagemap() path, I think
> that path only calls unmap_mapping_range() not try_to_unmap() and
> leaves _count elevated.

As noted above unmap_mapping_range() will drop the refcount whenever it
clears a pte/pmd mapping the folio and I think it should find all the
pte's mapping it.

> Lastly walking through the code again I think this fix is valid today:
>
> diff --git a/fs/dax.c b/fs/dax.c
> index fcbe62bde685..48f2c85690e1 100644
> --- a/fs/dax.c
> +++ b/fs/dax.c
> @@ -660,7 +660,7 @@ struct page *dax_layout_busy_page_range(struct address_space *mapping,
> pgoff_t end_idx;
> XA_STATE(xas, &mapping->i_pages, start_idx);
>
> - if (!dax_mapping(mapping) || !mapping_mapped(mapping))
> + if (!dax_mapping(mapping))
> return NULL;
>
> /* If end == LLONG_MAX, all pages from start to till end of file */
>
>
> ...because unmap_mapping_pages() will mark the mapping as unmapped even
> though there are "pfn tracked + page busy" entries to clean up.

Yep, I noticed this today when I was trying to figure out why my
re-ordering of the unmap/wait/untrack pfn wasn't working as expected. It
still isn't for some other reason, and I'm still figuring out if the
above is correct/valid, but it is on my list of things to look more
closely at.

> Appreciate you grappling this with me!

Not at all! And thank you as well ... I feel like this has helped me a
lot in getting a slightly better understanding of the problems. Also
unless you react violently to anything I've said here I think I have
enough material to post (and perhaps even explain!) the next version of
this series.

- Alistair