Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] libnvdimm: Add prctl control for disabling synchronous fault support.

["Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>]

"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> writes:

> On 6/1/20 5:37 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 01, 2020 at 05:31:50PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>> On 6/1/20 3:39 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>> On Fri 29-05-20 16:25:35, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>>>> On 5/29/20 3:22 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri 29-05-20 15:07:31, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>>>>>> Thanks Michal. I also missed Jeff in this email thread.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And I think you'll also need some of the sched maintainers for the prctl
>>>>>> bits...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/29/20 3:03 PM, Michal Suchánek wrote:
>>>>>>>> Adding Jan
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 11:11:39AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>>>>>>>>> With POWER10, architecture is adding new pmem flush and sync instructions.
>>>>>>>>> The kernel should prevent the usage of MAP_SYNC if applications are not using
>>>>>>>>> the new instructions on newer hardware.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This patch adds a prctl option MAP_SYNC_ENABLE that can be used to enable
>>>>>>>>> the usage of MAP_SYNC. The kernel config option is added to allow the user
>>>>>>>>> to control whether MAP_SYNC should be enabled by default or not.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
>>>>>>>>> index 8c700f881d92..d5a9a363e81e 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/kernel/fork.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -963,6 +963,12 @@ __cacheline_aligned_in_smp DEFINE_SPINLOCK(mmlist_lock);
>>>>>>>>>      static unsigned long default_dump_filter = MMF_DUMP_FILTER_DEFAULT;
>>>>>>>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_MAP_SYNC_DISABLE
>>>>>>>>> +unsigned long default_map_sync_mask = MMF_DISABLE_MAP_SYNC_MASK;
>>>>>>>>> +#else
>>>>>>>>> +unsigned long default_map_sync_mask = 0;
>>>>>>>>> +#endif
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure CONFIG is really the right approach here. For a distro that would
>>>>>> basically mean to disable MAP_SYNC for all PPC kernels unless application
>>>>>> explicitly uses the right prctl. Shouldn't we rather initialize
>>>>>> default_map_sync_mask on boot based on whether the CPU we run on requires
>>>>>> new flush instructions or not? Otherwise the patch looks sensible.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> yes that is correct. We ideally want to deny MAP_SYNC only w.r.t POWER10.
>>>>> But on a virtualized platform there is no easy way to detect that. We could
>>>>> ideally hook this into the nvdimm driver where we look at the new compat
>>>>> string ibm,persistent-memory-v2 and then disable MAP_SYNC
>>>>> if we find a device with the specific value.
>>>>
>>>> Hum, couldn't we set some flag for nvdimm devices with
>>>> "ibm,persistent-memory-v2" property and then check it during mmap(2) time
>>>> and when the device has this propery and the mmap(2) caller doesn't have
>>>> the prctl set, we'd disallow MAP_SYNC? That should make things mostly
>>>> seamless, shouldn't it? Only apps that want to use MAP_SYNC on these
>>>> devices would need to use prctl(MMF_DISABLE_MAP_SYNC, 0) but then these
>>>> applications need to be aware of new instructions so this isn't that much
>>>> additional burden...
>>>
>>> I am not sure application would want to add that much details/knowledge
>>> about a platform in their code. I was expecting application to do
>>>
>>> #ifdef __ppc64__
>>>          prctl(MAP_SYNC_ENABLE, 1, 0, 0, 0));
>>> #endif
>>>          a = mmap(NULL, PAGE_SIZE, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
>>>                          MAP_SHARED_VALIDATE | MAP_SYNC, fd, 0);
>>>
>>>
>>> For that code all the complexity that we add w.r.t ibm,persistent-memory-v2
>>> is not useful. Do you see a value in making all these device specific rather
>>> than a conditional on  __ppc64__?
>
>> If the vpmem devices continue to work with the old instruction on
>> POWER10 then it makes sense to make this per-device.
>
> vPMEM doesn't have write_cache and hence it is synchronous even without 
> using any specific flush instruction. The question is do we want to have
> different programming steps when running on vPMEM vs a persistent PMEM 
> device on ppc64.
>
> I will work on the device specific ENABLE flag and then we can compare 
> the kernel complexity against the added benefit.

I have posted an RFC v2 [1] that implements a device-specific MAP_SYNC
enable/disable feature. The Posted changes also add a dax flag suggested
by Dan. With device-specific MAP_SYNC enable/disable, it was just a sysfs
file export of the same flag. 

1. https://lore.kernel.org/linuxppc-dev/20200602074909.36738-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com/

-aneesh