AFAIK Solaris 11 uses a sparse tree instead of a array. Solves the
scalability problem AND deals with variable page size.
On 10 February 2016 at 23:09, Dave Chinner <david(a)fromorbit.com> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 11:32:49AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 09-02-16 10:18:53, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 9, 2016 at 9:24 AM, Jan Kara <jack(a)suse.cz> wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I was thinking about current issues with DAX fault locking  (data
> > > corruption due to racing faults allocating blocks) and also races which
> > > currently don't allow us to clear dirty tags in the radix tree due to
> > > between faults and cache flushing . Both of these exist because we
> > > have an equivalent of page lock available for DAX. While we have a
> > > reasonable solution available for problem , so far I'm not aware of
> > > decent solution for . After briefly discussing the issue with Mel he
> > > a bright idea that we could used hashed locks to deal with  (and I
> > > we can solve  with them as well). So my proposal looks as follows:
> > >
> > > DAX will have an array of mutexes (the array can be made per device but
> > > initially a global one should be OK). We will use mutexes in the array as
> > > replacement for page lock - we will use hashfn(mapping, index) to get
> > > particular mutex protecting our offset in the mapping. On fault / page
> > > mkwrite, we'll grab the mutex similarly to page lock and release it
> > > are done updating page tables. This deals with races in . When flushing
> > > caches we grab the mutex before clearing writeable bit in page tables
> > > and clearing dirty bit in the radix tree and drop it after we have flushed
> > > caches for the pfn. This deals with races in .
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > I like the fact that this makes the locking explicit and
> > straightforward rather than something more tricky. Can we make the
> > hashfn pfn based? I'm thinking we could later reuse this as part of
> > the solution for eliminating the need to allocate struct page, and we
> > don't have the 'mapping' available in all paths...
> So Mel originally suggested to use pfn for hashing as well. My concern with
> using pfn is that e.g. if you want to fill a hole, you don't have a pfn to
> lock. What you really need to protect is a logical offset in the file to
> serialize allocation of underlying blocks, its mapping into page tables,
> and flushing the blocks out of caches. So using inode/mapping and offset
> for the hashing is easier (it isn't obvious to me we can fix hole filling
> races with pfn-based locking).
So how does that file+offset hash work when trying to lock different
ranges? file+offset hashing to determine the lock to use only works
if we are dealing with fixed size ranges that the locks affect.
e.g. offset has 4k granularity for a single page faults, but we also
need to handle 2MB granularity for huge page faults, and IIRC 1GB
granularity for giant page faults...
What's the plan here?
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html