From: ruansy.fnst(a)fujitsu.com <ruansy.fnst(a)fujitsu.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 01/11] pagemap: Introduce ->memory_failure()
> > > > >
> > > > > After the conversation with Dave I don't see the point of
> > > > > If there is a memory_failure() on a page, why not just call
> > > > > memory_failure()? That already knows how to find the inode and
> > > > > the filesystem can be notified from there.
> > > >
> > > > We want memory_failure() supports reflinked files. In this
> > > > case, we are not able to track multiple files from a page(this
> > > > broken
> > > > page) because
> > > > page->mapping,page->index can only track one file. Thus, I
> > > > page->introduce this
> > > > ->memory_failure() implemented in pmem driver, to call
> > > > ->->corrupted_range()
> > > > upper level to upper level, and finally find out files who are
> > > > using(mmapping) this page.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I know the motivation, but this implementation seems backwards.
> > > It's already the case that memory_failure() looks up the
> > > address_space associated with a mapping. From there I would expect
> > > a new 'struct address_space_operations' op to let the fs handle
> > > the case when there are multiple address_spaces associated with a given
> > >
> > Let me think about it. In this way, we
> > 1. associate file mapping with dax page in dax page fault;
> I think this needs to be a new type of association that proxies the
> representation of the reflink across all involved address_spaces.
> > 2. iterate files reflinked to notify `kill processes signal` by the
> > new address_space_operation;
> > 3. re-associate to another reflinked file mapping when unmmaping
> > (rmap qeury in filesystem to get the another file).
> Perhaps the proxy object is reference counted per-ref-link. It seems
> error prone to keep changing the association of the pfn while the reflink is
I think my early rfc patchset was implemented in this way:
- Create a per-page 'dax-rmap tree' to store each reflinked file's
offset) when causing dax page fault.
- Mount this tree on page->zone_device_data which is not used in fsdax, so
that we can iterate reflinked file mappings in memory_failure() easily.
In my understanding, the dax-rmap tree is the proxy object you mentioned. If
so, I have to say, this method was rejected. Because this will cause huge
overhead in some case that every dax page have one dax-rmap tree.
How do you think about this? I am still confused. Could you give me some advice?
> > It did not handle those dax pages are not in use, because their
> > ->mapping are not associated to any file. I didn't think it through
> > until reading your conversation. Here is my understanding: this
> > case should be handled by badblock mechanism in pmem driver. This
> > badblock mechanism will call
> > ->corrupted_range() to tell filesystem to repaire the data if possible.
> There are 2 types of notifications. There are badblocks discovered by
> the driver (see notify_pmem()) and there are memory_failures()
> signalled by the CPU machine-check handler, or the platform BIOS. In
> the case of badblocks that needs to be information considered by the
> fs block allocator to avoid / try-to-repair badblocks on allocate, and
> to allow listing damaged files that need repair. The memory_failure()
> notification needs immediate handling to tear down mappings to that
> pfn and signal processes that have consumed it with
> SIGBUS-action-required. Processes that have the poison mapped, but have not
consumed it receive SIGBUS-action-optional.
> > So, we split it into two parts. And dax device and block device
> > won't be
> > up again. Is my understanding right?
> Right, it's only the filesystem that knows that the block_device and
> the dax_device alias data at the same logical offset. The requirements
> for sector error handling and page error handling are separate like
> block_device_operations and dax_operations.
> > But the solution above is to solve the hwpoison on one or couple
> > pages, which happens rarely(I think). Do the 'pmem remove'
> > operation
> cause hwpoison too?
> > Call memory_failure() so many times? I havn't understood this yet.
> I'm working on a patch here to call memory_failure() on a wide range
> for the surprise remove of a dax_device while a filesystem might be
> mounted. It won't be efficient, but there is no other way to notify
> the kernel that it needs to immediately stop referencing a page.
Linux-nvdimm mailing list -- linux-nvdimm(a)lists.01.org To unsubscribe send an
email to linux-nvdimm-leave(a)lists.01.org