Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH 0/6] dax poison recovery with RWF_RECOVERY_DATA flag

Christoph Hellwig
2021-11-05T05:57:29Z

On Thu, Nov 04, 2021 at 12:00:12PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > 1. dax_iomap_iter() rely on dax_direct_access() to decide whether there
> > is likely media error: if the API without DAX_F_RECOVERY returns
> > -EIO, then switch to recovery-read/write code. In recovery code,
> > supply DAX_F_RECOVERY to dax_direct_access() in order to obtain
> > 'kaddr', and then call dax_copy_to/from_iter() with DAX_F_RECOVERY.
>
> I like it. It allows for an atomic write+clear implementation on
> capable platforms and coordinates with potentially unmapped pages. The
> best of both worlds from the dax_clear_poison() proposal and my "take
> a fault and do a slow-path copy".

Fine with me as well.

>
> > 2. the _copy_to/from_iter implementation would be largely the same
> > as in my recent patch, but some changes in Christoph's
> > 'dax-devirtualize' maybe kept, such as DAX_F_VIRTUAL, obviously
> > virtual devices don't have the ability to clear poison, so no need
> > to complicate them. And this also means that not every endpoint
> > dax device has to provide dax_op.copy_to/from_iter, they may use the
> > default.
>
> Did I miss this series or are you talking about this one?
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20211018044054.1779424-1-hch@lst.de/

Yes. This is an early RFC, but I plan to finish this up and submit
it after the updated decouple series.

>
> > I'm not sure about nova and others, if they use different 'write' other
> > than via iomap, does that mean there will be need for a new set of
> > dax_op for their read/write?
>
> No, they're out-of-tree they'll adjust to the same interface that xfs
> and ext4 are using when/if they go upstream.

Yepp.