Re: [PATCH 3/5] vfs: add a zero-initialization mode to fallocate

Jane Chu
2021-09-24T01:21:36Z

On 9/23/2021 6:18 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 3:54 PM Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 10:42:11PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 7:43 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 6:42 PM Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>>>> [..]
>>>>> Hence this discussion leads me to conclude that fallocate() simply
>>>>> isn't the right interface to clear storage hardware poison state and
>>>>> it's much simpler for everyone - kernel and userspace - to provide a
>>>>> pwritev2(RWF_CLEAR_HWERROR) flag to directly instruct the IO path to
>>>>> clear hardware error state before issuing this user write to the
>>>>> hardware.
>>>>
>>>> That flag would slot in nicely in dax_iomap_iter() as the gate for
>>>> whether dax_direct_access() should allow mapping over error ranges,
>>>> and then as a flag to dax_copy_from_iter() to indicate that it should
>>>> compare the incoming write to known poison and clear it before
>>>> proceeding.
>>>>
>>>> I like the distinction, because there's a chance the application did
>>>> not know that the page had experienced data loss and might want the
>>>> error behavior. The other service the driver could offer with this
>>>> flag is to do a precise check of the incoming write to make sure it
>>>> overlaps known poison and then repair the entire page. Repairing whole
>>>> pages makes for a cleaner implementation of the code that tries to
>>>> keep poison out of the CPU speculation path, {set,clear}_mce_nospec().
>>>
>>> This flag could also be useful for preadv2() as there is currently no
>>> way to read the good data in a PMEM page with poison via DAX. So the
>>> flag would tell dax_direct_access() to again proceed in the face of
>>> errors, but then the driver's dax_copy_to_iter() operation could
>>> either read up to the precise byte offset of the error in the page, or
>>> autoreplace error data with zero's to try to maximize data recovery.
>>
>> Yes, it could. I like the idea - say RWF_IGNORE_HWERROR - to read
>> everything that can be read from the bad range because it's the
>> other half of the problem RWF_RESET_HWERROR is trying to address.
>> That is, the operation we want to perform on a range with an error
>> state is -data recovery-, not "reinitialisation". Data recovery
>> requires two steps:
>>
>> - "try to recover the data from the bad storage"; and
>> - "reinitialise the data and clear the error state"
>>
>> These naturally map to read() and write() operations, not
>> fallocate(). With RWF flags they become explicit data recovery
>> operations, unlike fallocate() which needs to imply that "writing
>> zeroes" == "reset hardware error state". While that reset method
>> may be true for a specific pmem hardware implementation it is not a
>> requirement for all storage hardware. It's most definitely not a
>> requirement for future storage hardware, either.
>>
>> It also means that applications have no choice in what data they can
>> use to reinitialise the damaged range with because fallocate() only
>> supports writing zeroes. If we've recovered data via a read() as you
>> suggest we could, then we can rebuild the data from other redundant
>> information and immediately write that back to the storage, hence
>> repairing the fault.
>>
>> That, in turn, allows the filesystem to turn the RWF_RESET_HWERROR
>> write into an exclusive operation and hence allow the
>> reinitialisation with the recovered/repaired state to run atomically
>> w.r.t. all other filesystem operations. i.e. the reset write
>> completes the recovery operation instead of requiring separate
>> "reset" and "write recovered data into zeroed range" steps that
>> cannot be executed atomically by userspace...
>
> /me nods
>
> Jane, want to take a run at patches for this ^^^?
>

Sure, I'll give it a try.

Thank you all for the discussions!

-jane