Re: Snapshot target and DAX-capable devices

Jan Kara
2018-08-30T09:30:37Z

On Tue 28-08-18 13:56:30, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28 2018 at 3:50am -0400,
> Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> > On Mon 27-08-18 16:43:28, Kani, Toshi wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2018-08-27 at 18:07 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > I've been analyzing why fstest generic/081 fails when the backing device is
> > > > capable of DAX. The problem boils down to the failure of:
> > > >
> > > > lvm vgcreate -f vg0 /dev/pmem0
> > > > lvm lvcreate -L 128M -n lv0 vg0
> > > > lvm lvcreate -s -L 4M -n snap0 vg0/lv0
> > > >
> > > > The last command fails like:
> > > >
> > > > device-mapper: reload ioctl on (253:0) failed: Invalid argument
> > > > Failed to lock logical volume vg0/lv0.
> > > > Aborting. Manual intervention required.
> > > >
> > > > And the core of the problem is that volume vg0/lv0 is originally of
> > > > DM_TYPE_DAX_BIO_BASED type but when the snapshot gets created, we try to
> > > > switch it to DM_TYPE_BIO_BASED because now the device stops supporting DAX.
> > > > The problem seems to be introduced by Ross' commit dbc626597 "dm: prevent
> > > > DAX mounts if not supported".
> > > >
> > > > The question is whether / how this should be fixed. The current inability
> > > > to create snapshots of DAX-capable devices looks weird and the cryptic
> > > > failure makes it even worse (it took me quite a while to understand what is
> > > > failing and why). OTOH I see the rationale behind Ross' change as well.
> > >
> > > Here are the dm-snap changes that went along with the original DAX
> > > support.
> > >
> > > commit b5ab4a9ba55
> > > commit f6e629bd237
> > >
> > > Basically, snapshots can be added/removed to DAX-capable devices, but
> > > snapshots need to be mounted without dax option.
> >
> > Yes, and after these two commits things were working. But then commit
> > dbc626597 broke things again so currently snapshotting DAX-capable devices
> > does not work. Just try with 4.18...
>
> Commit f6e629bd237 was a nasty hack, and commit dbc626597 exposed it as
> such. But commit dbc626597 has caused us to regress.. so we need to fix
> it.
>
> We could remove DM_TYPE_DAX_BIO_BASED completely. But in the past I was
> reluctant to do so because it really is unclear how/if we can even
> support a device switching from DAX to non-DAX while IO is in-flight. DM
> supports suspending without flushing (via dmsetup suspend --noflush) and
> that could really be problematic if we leave DAX IO inflight and then
> switch the DM table such that the DM device no longer supports DAX.

Well, changing device from DAX-capable to DAX-incapable is problematic for
filesystem on top of it as well. Filesystems simply don't expect this
feature of a device can change so they would fail in unexpected ways. Also
PFNs from the pmem (DAX-capable) device that are already mapped to user page
tables won't magically become unmapped so those processes will still have
DAX access to those areas of the device.

But, if both original bdev and COW device are DAX-capable, we *should* be
able to support snapshotting (and refusing mixing of DAX-capable and
DAX-incapable devices in a snapshot is IMHO not very surprising to users).
When creating a snapshot of a device, we need to freeze the filesystem
using it. That will writeprotect all page tables so we are sure we'll get
page faults (and thus ->direct_access requests from DM POV) for each write
attempt to any mapping. Then ->direct_access method of snapshot-origin can
make sure to copy original contents to the COW-device before returning PFN
from ->direct_access. Similarly ->direct_access of COW-device can provide
remapped PFN so everything should work seamlessly from user POV.

So something like the above would seem like the best solution from user
POV. Implementation of the above would not be completely trivial though as
far as I'm looking into DM code. We'd have to implement ->direct_access
paths for dm-snap and also I have a vague memory ->direct_access is not
allowed to sleep these days and DM uses sleeping locks all around... Dan
should know how big obstacle would it be to reintroduce the sleeping
possibility (I'm not currently aware of any particular problem with that
but I'm not paying close attention to those parts of NVDIMM code).

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