Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: show the dax option in mount options.

Ira Weiny
2020-11-12T16:09:23Z

On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 04:10:46PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 12-11-20 12:12:17, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 12:49:52PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 11:28:48AM +0100, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 08:08:23AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 09:27:05PM +0100, Michal Suchánek wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 11:24:19AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Nov 09, 2020 at 08:10:08PM +0100, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> > > > > > > > xfs accepts both dax and dax_enum but shows only dax_enum. Show both
> > > > > > > > options.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Fixes: 8d6c3446ec23 ("fs/xfs: Make DAX mount option a tri-state")
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Michal Suchanek <msuchanek@suse.de>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 2 +-
> > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > > > > > > > index e3e229e52512..a3b00003840d 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ xfs_fs_show_options(
> > > > > > > > { XFS_MOUNT_GRPID, ",grpid" },
> > > > > > > > { XFS_MOUNT_DISCARD, ",discard" },
> > > > > > > > { XFS_MOUNT_LARGEIO, ",largeio" },
> > > > > > > > - { XFS_MOUNT_DAX_ALWAYS, ",dax=always" },
> > > > > > > > + { XFS_MOUNT_DAX_ALWAYS, ",dax,dax=always" },

I only caught this thread yesterday sorry about that...

FWIW I think it odd to have this string. Because what does 'dax,dax=always'
mean? dax=always is not the only way the FS can support DAX. The default
'dax=inode' also means the FS supports DAX. So I'm not sure this is really
even giving you what you want.

> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > NAK, programs that require DAX semantics for files stored on XFS must
> > > > > > > call statx to detect the STATX_ATTR_DAX flag, as outlined in "Enabling
> > > > > > > DAX on xfs" in Documentation/filesystems/dax.txt.
> > > > > > statx can be used to query S_DAX. NOTE that only regular files will
> > > > > > ever have S_DAX set and therefore statx will never indicate that S_DAX
> > > > > > is set on directories.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup, by design.
> > > > >
> > > > > The application doesn't need to do anything complex to make this
> > > > > work. If the app wants to use DAX, then it should use
> > > > > FS_IOC_FS{GS}ETXATTR to always set the on disk per inode DAX flags
> > > > > for it's data dirs and files, and then STATX_ATTR_DAX will *always*
> > > > > tell it whether DAX is actively in use at runtime. It's pretty
> > > > > simple, really.
> > > > >
> > > > > > The filesystem may not have any files so statx cannot be used.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really? The app or installer is about to *write to the fs* and has
> > > > > all the permissions it needs to modify the contents of the fs. It's
> > > > > pretty simple to create a tmpdir, set the DAX flag on the tmpdir,
> > > > > then create a tmpfile in the tmpdir and run STATX_ATTR_DAX on it to
> > > > > see if DAX is active or not.....
> > > >
> > > > Have you ever seen a 'wizard' style installer?
> > >
> > > I wrote my first one in 1995 on Windows NT 3.51 using Installshield.

I'm confused about this talk of an installer. If 1 FS supports DAX and the
other, say 10, do not; what happens when you install something special which
to support DAX? But what if the user of that software uses one of the other
10 FS's?

I think it has already been mentioned that the software needs this check at run
time to be correct.

> > >
> > > > Like one that firsts asks what to install, and then presents a list of
> > > > suitable locations that have enough space, supported filesystem features
> > > > enabled, and whatnot?
> > >
> > > Hold on, 1995 is calling me. The application I was packaging used
> > > ACLs. But the NTFS version created by windows NT 3.1 was
> > > incompatible as ACL support didn't arrive until NT 3.51 and service
> > > pack 4(?) for NT 3.1. Yes, I had to write code to probe the
> > > filesystems to detect whether ACL support was available or not by
> > > -trying to create an ACL-.
> > >
> > > I guess you could say "been there, done that, learnt the lesson".
> > So we are trying to be as bad as Windows now?
> > >
> > > > So to present a list of mountpoints that support DAX one has to scribble
> > > > over every mountpoint on the system?
> > >
> > > If you are filtering storage options presented to the user by
> > > supported features, then you have to probe for them in some way.
> > > And that means you have to consider that many option filesystem
> > > features that applications use cannot be detected via mount options
> > > checking the filesytem config. That is, there are features that can
> > > only be discovered by actually testing whether they work or not.
> > >
> > > > That sounds ridiculous.
> > >
> > > Reality is a harsh mistress. :/
> > >
> > > [snip the rest because you're being ridiculous]
> > >
> > > Are you aware of ndctl?
> > >
> > > $ ndctl list
> > > [
> > > {
> > > "dev":"namespace1.0",
> > > "mode":"fsdax",
> > > "map":"mem",
> > > "size":8589934592,
> > > "sector_size":512,
> > > "blockdev":"pmem1"
> > > },
> > > {
> > > "dev":"namespace0.0",
> > > "mode":"fsdax",
> > > "map":"mem",
> > > "size":8589934592,
> > > "sector_size":512,
> > > "blockdev":"pmem0"
> > > }
> > > ]
> > Yes, that tells me that the device can be configured for dax. Not if the
> > filesystem will use it.
> > >
> > > Oh, look there are two block devices on this machine that are
> > > configured for filesystem DAX (fsdax). They are /dev/pmem0 and
> > > /dev/pmem1.
> > >
> > > What filesytsems are on them?
> > >
> > > $ lsblk -o NAME,SIZE,FSTYPE,MOUNTPOINT /dev/pmem0 /dev/pmem1
> > > NAME SIZE FSTYPE MOUNTPOINT
> > > pmem1 8G ext4 /mnt/test
> > > pmem0 8G xfs /mnt/scratch
> > > $
> > >
> > > One XFs, one ext4, both of which will be using DAX capable unless
> > > the dax=never mount option is set. Which:
> > Or the bock size does not match page size. Or whatever other requirement
> > the filesystem might have is not met.
> > >
> > > $ mount |grep pmem
> > > /dev/pmem0 on /mnt/scratch type xfs (rw,relatime,attr2,inode64,logbufs=8,logbsize=32k,noquota)
> > > /dev/pmem1 on /mnt/test type ext4 (rw,relatime)
> > > $
> > >
> > > is not set on either mount.
> > >
> > > Hence both filesystems at DAX capable and enabled, and should be
> > > presented as options to the user as such.
> > No, it is not the case. That is why it would make sense for the kernel
> > to make the information about DAX availability accessible somewhere.

But again at run time the software needs to verify it is being asked to operate
on a FS which supports DAX. So I don't think what you are proposing is going
to work all of the time.

> > >
> > > And all this comes about because DAX is a property of the block
> > > device, not the filesystem. Hence the only time a DAX capable
> > > filesystem on a block device that is DAX capable will not be DAX
> > > capable is if the dax=never is set...
> > See, it is not property of the block device. It is property of the mount
> > point. The availability on the device is one requirement but the
> > filesystem options affect availability to the user in the end.
>
> No, it is not really a property of the mountpoint either. If anything it is
> a property of the inode. Two different inodes on the very same filesystem,
> one may support DAX the other will not (think for example of XFS real-time
> volumes, or simply inodes with / without S_DAX flag set). And we are back
> at what Dave tries to get accross. As inconvenient as it is
> statx(STATX_ATTR_DAX) is the only way to tell.
>
> > > Of course, this is just encoding how existing filesystems behave -
> > > it's not a requirement for future filesytsems so they may use other
> > > mechanisms for enabling/disabling DAX. Which leaves you with the
> > > only reliable mechanism of creating filesystem and checking
> > > statx(STATX_ATTR_DAX)....
> > Or the kernel could just tell the user. But right, information is power,
> > and keeping the user in the dark is much more entertaining.
>
> I think it would be more productive if you actually answered Ted's
> question: Exactly which application got broken by the change? I know for a
> fact that one large DB vendor was parsing mount options in /proc/mounts to
> determine whether their DB can use DAX or not (and this was already a
> "cleaned up" method because before this they were parsing VMA flags in
> /proc/<pid>/smaps which is even worse). But in this case they also seemed
> OK to switch to statx() once it is available...

I agree. I struggled over these options and what to present when I added the
feature and I never intended to break anything.

That said, I'm not sure what exactly is broken. Moreover, I'm concerned that
there may be more wrong here than just the lack of a 'dax' option string in the
mount.

Ira