Re: [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -)

Jan Kara
2019-08-19T06:38:29Z

On Fri 16-08-19 16:20:07, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:05:28PM -0700, 'Ira Weiny' wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 03:05:58PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Wed 14-08-19 11:08:49, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:17:14PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > Hello!
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri 09-08-19 15:58:14, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> > > > > > Pre-requisites
> > > > > > ==============
> > > > > > Based on mmotm tree.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Based on the feedback from LSFmm, the LWN article, the RFC series since
> > > > > > then, and a ton of scenarios I've worked in my mind and/or tested...[1]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Solution summary
> > > > > > ================
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The real issue is that there is no use case for a user to have RDMA pinn'ed
> > > > > > memory which is then truncated. So really any solution we present which:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A) Prevents file system corruption or data leaks
> > > > > > ...and...
> > > > > > B) Informs the user that they did something wrong
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Should be an acceptable solution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Because this is slightly new behavior. And because this is going to be
> > > > > > specific to DAX (because of the lack of a page cache) we have made the user
> > > > > > "opt in" to this behavior.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The following patches implement the following solution.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 0) Registrations to Device DAX char devs are not affected
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) The user has to opt in to allowing page pins on a file with an exclusive
> > > > > > layout lease. Both exclusive and layout lease flags are user visible now.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2) page pins will fail if the lease is not active when the file back page is
> > > > > > encountered.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3) Any truncate or hole punch operation on a pinned DAX page will fail.
> > > > >
> > > > > So I didn't fully grok the patch set yet but by "pinned DAX page" do you
> > > > > mean a page which has corresponding file_pin covering it? Or do you mean a
> > > > > page which has pincount increased? If the first then I'd rephrase this to
> > > > > be less ambiguous, if the second then I think it is wrong.
> > > >
> > > > I mean the second. but by "fail" I mean hang. Right now the "normal" page
> > > > pincount processing will hang the truncate. Given the discussion with John H
> > > > we can make this a bit better if we use something like FOLL_PIN and the page
> > > > count bias to indicate this type of pin. Then I could fail the truncate
> > > > outright. but that is not done yet.
> > > >
> > > > so... I used the word "fail" to be a bit more vague as the final implementation
> > > > may return ETXTBUSY or hang as noted.
> > >
> > > Ah, OK. Hanging is fine in principle but with longterm pins, your work
> > > makes sure they actually fail with ETXTBUSY, doesn't it? The thing is that
> > > e.g. DIO will use page pins as well for its buffers and we must wait there
> > > until the pin is released. So please just clarify your 'fail' here a bit
> > > :).
> >
> > It will fail with ETXTBSY. I've fixed a bug... See below.
> >
> > >
> > > > > > 4) The user has the option of holding the lease or releasing it. If they
> > > > > > release it no other pin calls will work on the file.
> > > > >
> > > > > Last time we spoke the plan was that the lease is kept while the pages are
> > > > > pinned (and an attempt to release the lease would block until the pages are
> > > > > unpinned). That also makes it clear that the *lease* is what is making
> > > > > truncate and hole punch fail with ETXTBUSY and the file_pin structure is
> > > > > just an implementation detail how the existence is efficiently tracked (and
> > > > > what keeps the backing file for the pages open so that the lease does not
> > > > > get auto-destroyed). Why did you change this?
> > > >
> > > > closing the file _and_ unmaping it will cause the lease to be released
> > > > regardless of if we allow this or not.
> > > >
> > > > As we discussed preventing the close seemed intractable.
> > >
> > > Yes, preventing the application from closing the file is difficult. But
> > > from a quick look at your patches it seemed to me that you actually hold a
> > > backing file reference from the file_pin structure thus even though the
> > > application closes its file descriptor, the struct file (and thus the
> > > lease) lives further until the file_pin gets released. And that should last
> > > as long as the pages are pinned. Am I missing something?
> > >
> > > > I thought about failing the munmap but that seemed wrong as well. But more
> > > > importantly AFAIK RDMA can pass its memory pins to other processes via FD
> > > > passing... This means that one could pin this memory, pass it to another
> > > > process and exit. The file lease on the pin'ed file is lost.
> > >
> > > Not if file_pin grabs struct file reference as I mentioned above...
> > >
> > > > The file lease is just a key to get the memory pin. Once unlocked the procfs
> > > > tracking keeps track of where that pin goes and which processes need to be
> > > > killed to get rid of it.
> > >
> > > I think having file lease being just a key to get the pin is conceptually
> > > wrong. The lease is what expresses: "I'm accessing these blocks directly,
> > > don't touch them without coordinating with me." So it would be only natural
> > > if we maintained the lease while we are accessing blocks instead of
> > > transferring this protection responsibility to another structure - namely
> > > file_pin - and letting the lease go.
> >
> > We do transfer that protection to the file_pin but we don't have to "let the
> > lease" go. We just keep the lease with the file_pin as you said. See below...
> >
> > > But maybe I miss some technical reason
> > > why maintaining file lease is difficult. If that's the case, I'd like to hear
> > > what...
> >
> > Ok, I've thought a bit about what you said and indeed it should work that way.
> > The reason I had to think a bit is that I was not sure why I thought we needed
> > to hang... Turns out there were a couple of reasons... 1 not so good and 1 ok
> > but still not good enough to allow this...
> >
> > 1) I had a bug in the XFS code which should have failed rather than hanging...
> > So this was not a good reason... And I was able to find/fix it... Thanks!
> >
> > 2) Second reason is that I thought I did not have a good way to tell if the
> > lease was actually in use. What I mean is that letting the lease go should
> > be ok IFF we don't have any pins... I was thinking that without John's code
> > we don't have a way to know if there are any pins... But that is wrong...
> > All we have to do is check
> >
> > !list_empty(file->file_pins)
>
> Oops... I got my "struct files" mixed up... The RDMA struct file has the
> file_pins hanging off it... This will not work.
>
> I'll have to try something else to prevent this. However, I don't want to walk
> all the pages of the inode.
>
> Also I'm concerned about just failing if they happen to be pinned. They need
> to be LONGTERM pinned... Otherwise we might have a transient failure of an
> unlock based on some internal kernel transient pin... :-/

My solution for this was that file_pin would contain counter of pinned
pages which vaddr_pin_pages() would increment and vaddr_unpin_pages() would
decrement. Checking whether there's any outstanding page pinned attached to
the file_pin is then trivial...

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