| Message ID | 20190809225833.6657-2-ira.weiny@intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | RFC |
| Headers | show |
| Series | RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) | expand |
On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 03:58:15PM -0700, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote: > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> > > In order to support an opt-in policy for users to allow long term pins > of FS DAX pages we need to export the LAYOUT lease to user space. > > This is the first of 2 new lease flags which must be used to allow a > long term pin to be made on a file. > > After the complete series: > > 0) Registrations to Device DAX char devs are not affected > > 1) The user has to opt in to allowing page pins on a file with an exclusive > layout lease. Both exclusive and layout lease flags are user visible now. > > 2) page pins will fail if the lease is not active when the file back page is > encountered. > > 3) Any truncate or hole punch operation on a pinned DAX page will fail. > > 4) The user has the option of holding the lease or releasing it. If they > release it no other pin calls will work on the file. > > 5) Closing the file is ok. > > 6) Unmapping the file is ok > > 7) Pins against the files are tracked back to an owning file or an owning mm > depending on the internal subsystem needs. With RDMA there is an owning > file which is related to the pined file. > > 8) Only RDMA is currently supported > > 9) Truncation of pages which are not actively pinned nor covered by a lease > will succeed. This has nothing to do with layout leases or what they provide access arbitration over. Layout leases have _nothing_ to do with page pinning or RDMA - they arbitrate behaviour the file offset -> physical block device mapping within the filesystem and the behaviour that will occur when a specific lease is held. The commit descripting needs to describe what F_LAYOUT actually protects, when they'll get broken, etc, not how RDMA is going to use it. > @@ -2022,8 +2030,26 @@ static int do_fcntl_add_lease(unsigned int fd, struct file *filp, long arg) > struct file_lock *fl; > struct fasync_struct *new; > int error; > + unsigned int flags = 0; > + > + /* > + * NOTE on F_LAYOUT lease > + * > + * LAYOUT lease types are taken on files which the user knows that > + * they will be pinning in memory for some indeterminate amount of > + * time. Indeed, layout leases have nothing to do with pinning of memory. That's something an application taht uses layout leases might do, but it largely irrelevant to the functionality layout leases provide. What needs to be done here is explain what the layout lease API actually guarantees w.r.t. the physical file layout, not what some application is going to do with a lease. e.g. The layout lease F_RDLCK guarantees that the holder will be notified that the physical file layout is about to be changed, and that it needs to release any resources it has over the range of this lease, drop the lease and then request it again to wait for the kernel to finish whatever it is doing on that range. The layout lease F_RDLCK also allows the holder to modify the physical layout of the file. If an operation from the lease holder occurs that would modify the layout, that lease holder does not get notification that a change will occur, but it will block until all other F_RDLCK leases have been released by their holders before going ahead. If there is a F_WRLCK lease held on the file, then a F_RDLCK holder will fail any operation that may modify the physical layout of the file. F_WRLCK provides exclusive physical modification access to the holder, guaranteeing nothing else will change the layout of the file while it holds the lease. The F_WRLCK holder can change the physical layout of the file if it so desires, this will block while F_RDLCK holders are notified and release their leases before the modification will take place. We need to define the semantics we expose to userspace first..... Cheers, Dave.
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 09:52:31AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 03:58:15PM -0700, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote: > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> > > > > In order to support an opt-in policy for users to allow long term pins > > of FS DAX pages we need to export the LAYOUT lease to user space. > > > > This is the first of 2 new lease flags which must be used to allow a > > long term pin to be made on a file. > > > > After the complete series: > > > > 0) Registrations to Device DAX char devs are not affected > > > > 1) The user has to opt in to allowing page pins on a file with an exclusive > > layout lease. Both exclusive and layout lease flags are user visible now. > > > > 2) page pins will fail if the lease is not active when the file back page is > > encountered. > > > > 3) Any truncate or hole punch operation on a pinned DAX page will fail. > > > > 4) The user has the option of holding the lease or releasing it. If they > > release it no other pin calls will work on the file. > > > > 5) Closing the file is ok. > > > > 6) Unmapping the file is ok > > > > 7) Pins against the files are tracked back to an owning file or an owning mm > > depending on the internal subsystem needs. With RDMA there is an owning > > file which is related to the pined file. > > > > 8) Only RDMA is currently supported > > > > 9) Truncation of pages which are not actively pinned nor covered by a lease > > will succeed. > > This has nothing to do with layout leases or what they provide > access arbitration over. Layout leases have _nothing_ to do with > page pinning or RDMA - they arbitrate behaviour the file offset -> > physical block device mapping within the filesystem and the > behaviour that will occur when a specific lease is held. > > The commit descripting needs to describe what F_LAYOUT actually > protects, when they'll get broken, etc, not how RDMA is going to use > it. Ok yes I've been lax in mixing the cover letter for the series and this first commit message. My apologies. > > > @@ -2022,8 +2030,26 @@ static int do_fcntl_add_lease(unsigned int fd, struct file *filp, long arg) > > struct file_lock *fl; > > struct fasync_struct *new; > > int error; > > + unsigned int flags = 0; > > + > > + /* > > + * NOTE on F_LAYOUT lease > > + * > > + * LAYOUT lease types are taken on files which the user knows that > > + * they will be pinning in memory for some indeterminate amount of > > + * time. > > Indeed, layout leases have nothing to do with pinning of memory. Yep, Fair enough. I'll rework the comment. > That's something an application taht uses layout leases might do, > but it largely irrelevant to the functionality layout leases > provide. What needs to be done here is explain what the layout lease > API actually guarantees w.r.t. the physical file layout, not what > some application is going to do with a lease. e.g. > > The layout lease F_RDLCK guarantees that the holder will be > notified that the physical file layout is about to be > changed, and that it needs to release any resources it has > over the range of this lease, drop the lease and then > request it again to wait for the kernel to finish whatever > it is doing on that range. > > The layout lease F_RDLCK also allows the holder to modify > the physical layout of the file. If an operation from the > lease holder occurs that would modify the layout, that lease > holder does not get notification that a change will occur, > but it will block until all other F_RDLCK leases have been > released by their holders before going ahead. > > If there is a F_WRLCK lease held on the file, then a F_RDLCK > holder will fail any operation that may modify the physical > layout of the file. F_WRLCK provides exclusive physical > modification access to the holder, guaranteeing nothing else > will change the layout of the file while it holds the lease. > > The F_WRLCK holder can change the physical layout of the > file if it so desires, this will block while F_RDLCK holders > are notified and release their leases before the > modification will take place. > > We need to define the semantics we expose to userspace first..... Agreed. I believe I have implemented the semantics you describe above. Do I have your permission to use your verbiage as part of reworking the comment and commit message? Thanks, Ira > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com >
On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:36:26AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 09:52:31AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 03:58:15PM -0700, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote: > > > + /* > > > + * NOTE on F_LAYOUT lease > > > + * > > > + * LAYOUT lease types are taken on files which the user knows that > > > + * they will be pinning in memory for some indeterminate amount of > > > + * time. > > > > Indeed, layout leases have nothing to do with pinning of memory. > > Yep, Fair enough. I'll rework the comment. > > > That's something an application taht uses layout leases might do, > > but it largely irrelevant to the functionality layout leases > > provide. What needs to be done here is explain what the layout lease > > API actually guarantees w.r.t. the physical file layout, not what > > some application is going to do with a lease. e.g. > > > > The layout lease F_RDLCK guarantees that the holder will be > > notified that the physical file layout is about to be > > changed, and that it needs to release any resources it has > > over the range of this lease, drop the lease and then > > request it again to wait for the kernel to finish whatever > > it is doing on that range. > > > > The layout lease F_RDLCK also allows the holder to modify > > the physical layout of the file. If an operation from the > > lease holder occurs that would modify the layout, that lease > > holder does not get notification that a change will occur, > > but it will block until all other F_RDLCK leases have been > > released by their holders before going ahead. > > > > If there is a F_WRLCK lease held on the file, then a F_RDLCK > > holder will fail any operation that may modify the physical > > layout of the file. F_WRLCK provides exclusive physical > > modification access to the holder, guaranteeing nothing else > > will change the layout of the file while it holds the lease. > > > > The F_WRLCK holder can change the physical layout of the > > file if it so desires, this will block while F_RDLCK holders > > are notified and release their leases before the > > modification will take place. > > > > We need to define the semantics we expose to userspace first..... > > Agreed. I believe I have implemented the semantics you describe above. Do I > have your permission to use your verbiage as part of reworking the comment and > commit message? Of course. :) Cheers, Dave.
On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 18:05 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:36:26AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 09:52:31AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 03:58:15PM -0700, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote: > > > > + /* > > > > + * NOTE on F_LAYOUT lease > > > > + * > > > > + * LAYOUT lease types are taken on files which the user knows that > > > > + * they will be pinning in memory for some indeterminate amount of > > > > + * time. > > > > > > Indeed, layout leases have nothing to do with pinning of memory. > > > > Yep, Fair enough. I'll rework the comment. > > > > > That's something an application taht uses layout leases might do, > > > but it largely irrelevant to the functionality layout leases > > > provide. What needs to be done here is explain what the layout lease > > > API actually guarantees w.r.t. the physical file layout, not what > > > some application is going to do with a lease. e.g. > > > > > > The layout lease F_RDLCK guarantees that the holder will be > > > notified that the physical file layout is about to be > > > changed, and that it needs to release any resources it has > > > over the range of this lease, drop the lease and then > > > request it again to wait for the kernel to finish whatever > > > it is doing on that range. > > > > > > The layout lease F_RDLCK also allows the holder to modify > > > the physical layout of the file. If an operation from the > > > lease holder occurs that would modify the layout, that lease > > > holder does not get notification that a change will occur, > > > but it will block until all other F_RDLCK leases have been > > > released by their holders before going ahead. > > > > > > If there is a F_WRLCK lease held on the file, then a F_RDLCK > > > holder will fail any operation that may modify the physical > > > layout of the file. F_WRLCK provides exclusive physical > > > modification access to the holder, guaranteeing nothing else > > > will change the layout of the file while it holds the lease. > > > > > > The F_WRLCK holder can change the physical layout of the > > > file if it so desires, this will block while F_RDLCK holders > > > are notified and release their leases before the > > > modification will take place. > > > > > > We need to define the semantics we expose to userspace first..... Absolutely. > > > > Agreed. I believe I have implemented the semantics you describe above. Do I > > have your permission to use your verbiage as part of reworking the comment and > > commit message? > > Of course. :) > > Cheers, > I'll review this in more detail soon, but subsequent postings of the set should probably also go to linux-api mailing list. This is a significant API change. It might not also hurt to get the glibc folks involved here too since you'll probably want to add the constants to the headers there as well. Finally, consider going ahead and drafting a patch to the fcntl(2) manpage if you think you have the API mostly nailed down. This API is a little counterintuitive (i.e. you can change the layout with an F_RDLCK lease), so it will need to be very clearly documented. I've also found that when creating a new API, documenting it tends to help highlight its warts and areas where the behavior is not clearly defined.
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 07:21:34AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 18:05 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:36:26AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote: > > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 09:52:31AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 03:58:15PM -0700, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote: > > > > > + /* > > > > > + * NOTE on F_LAYOUT lease > > > > > + * > > > > > + * LAYOUT lease types are taken on files which the user knows that > > > > > + * they will be pinning in memory for some indeterminate amount of > > > > > + * time. > > > > > > > > Indeed, layout leases have nothing to do with pinning of memory. > > > > > > Yep, Fair enough. I'll rework the comment. > > > > > > > That's something an application taht uses layout leases might do, > > > > but it largely irrelevant to the functionality layout leases > > > > provide. What needs to be done here is explain what the layout lease > > > > API actually guarantees w.r.t. the physical file layout, not what > > > > some application is going to do with a lease. e.g. > > > > > > > > The layout lease F_RDLCK guarantees that the holder will be > > > > notified that the physical file layout is about to be > > > > changed, and that it needs to release any resources it has > > > > over the range of this lease, drop the lease and then > > > > request it again to wait for the kernel to finish whatever > > > > it is doing on that range. > > > > > > > > The layout lease F_RDLCK also allows the holder to modify > > > > the physical layout of the file. If an operation from the > > > > lease holder occurs that would modify the layout, that lease > > > > holder does not get notification that a change will occur, > > > > but it will block until all other F_RDLCK leases have been > > > > released by their holders before going ahead. > > > > > > > > If there is a F_WRLCK lease held on the file, then a F_RDLCK > > > > holder will fail any operation that may modify the physical > > > > layout of the file. F_WRLCK provides exclusive physical > > > > modification access to the holder, guaranteeing nothing else > > > > will change the layout of the file while it holds the lease. > > > > > > > > The F_WRLCK holder can change the physical layout of the > > > > file if it so desires, this will block while F_RDLCK holders > > > > are notified and release their leases before the > > > > modification will take place. > > > > > > > > We need to define the semantics we expose to userspace first..... > > Absolutely. > > > > > > > Agreed. I believe I have implemented the semantics you describe above. Do I > > > have your permission to use your verbiage as part of reworking the comment and > > > commit message? > > > > Of course. :) > > > > Cheers, > > > > I'll review this in more detail soon, but subsequent postings of the set > should probably also go to linux-api mailing list. This is a significant > API change. It might not also hurt to get the glibc folks involved here > too since you'll probably want to add the constants to the headers there > as well. Sure, but lets first get it to the point where we have something that is actually workable, much more complete and somewhat validated with unit tests before we start involving too many people. Wide review of prototype code isn't really a good use of resources given how much it's probably going to change from here... > Finally, consider going ahead and drafting a patch to the fcntl(2) > manpage if you think you have the API mostly nailed down. This API is a > little counterintuitive (i.e. you can change the layout with an F_RDLCK > lease), so it will need to be very clearly documented. I've also found > that when creating a new API, documenting it tends to help highlight its > warts and areas where the behavior is not clearly defined. I find writing unit tests for xfstests to validate the new APIs work as intended finds far more problems with the API than writing the documentation. :) Cheers, Dave.
diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c index 24d1db632f6c..ad17c6ffca06 100644 --- a/fs/locks.c +++ b/fs/locks.c @@ -191,6 +191,8 @@ static int target_leasetype(struct file_lock *fl) return F_UNLCK; if (fl->fl_flags & FL_DOWNGRADE_PENDING) return F_RDLCK; + if (fl->fl_flags & FL_LAYOUT) + return F_LAYOUT; return fl->fl_type; } @@ -611,7 +613,8 @@ static const struct lock_manager_operations lease_manager_ops = { /* * Initialize a lease, use the default lock manager operations */ -static int lease_init(struct file *filp, long type, struct file_lock *fl) +static int lease_init(struct file *filp, long type, unsigned int flags, + struct file_lock *fl) { if (assign_type(fl, type) != 0) return -EINVAL; @@ -621,6 +624,8 @@ static int lease_init(struct file *filp, long type, struct file_lock *fl) fl->fl_file = filp; fl->fl_flags = FL_LEASE; + if (flags & FL_LAYOUT) + fl->fl_flags |= FL_LAYOUT; fl->fl_start = 0; fl->fl_end = OFFSET_MAX; fl->fl_ops = NULL; @@ -629,7 +634,8 @@ static int lease_init(struct file *filp, long type, struct file_lock *fl) } /* Allocate a file_lock initialised to this type of lease */ -static struct file_lock *lease_alloc(struct file *filp, long type) +static struct file_lock *lease_alloc(struct file *filp, long type, + unsigned int flags) { struct file_lock *fl = locks_alloc_lock(); int error = -ENOMEM; @@ -637,7 +643,7 @@ static struct file_lock *lease_alloc(struct file *filp, long type) if (fl == NULL) return ERR_PTR(error); - error = lease_init(filp, type, fl); + error = lease_init(filp, type, flags, fl); if (error) { locks_free_lock(fl); return ERR_PTR(error); @@ -1583,7 +1589,7 @@ int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type) int want_write = (mode & O_ACCMODE) != O_RDONLY; LIST_HEAD(dispose); - new_fl = lease_alloc(NULL, want_write ? F_WRLCK : F_RDLCK); + new_fl = lease_alloc(NULL, want_write ? F_WRLCK : F_RDLCK, 0); if (IS_ERR(new_fl)) return PTR_ERR(new_fl); new_fl->fl_flags = type; @@ -1720,6 +1726,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(lease_get_mtime); * * %F_UNLCK to indicate no lease is held. * + * %F_LAYOUT to indicate a layout lease is held. + * * (if a lease break is pending): * * %F_RDLCK to indicate an exclusive lease needs to be @@ -2022,8 +2030,26 @@ static int do_fcntl_add_lease(unsigned int fd, struct file *filp, long arg) struct file_lock *fl; struct fasync_struct *new; int error; + unsigned int flags = 0; + + /* + * NOTE on F_LAYOUT lease + * + * LAYOUT lease types are taken on files which the user knows that + * they will be pinning in memory for some indeterminate amount of + * time. Such as for use with RDMA. While we don't know what user + * space is going to do with the file we still use a F_RDLOCK level of + * lease. This ensures that there are no conflicts between + * 2 users. The conflict should only come from the File system wanting + * to revoke the lease in break_layout() And this is done by using + * F_WRLCK in the break code. + */ + if (arg == F_LAYOUT) { + arg = F_RDLCK; + flags = FL_LAYOUT; + } - fl = lease_alloc(filp, arg); + fl = lease_alloc(filp, arg, flags); if (IS_ERR(fl)) return PTR_ERR(fl); diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h index 046108cd4ed9..dd60d5be9886 100644 --- a/include/linux/fs.h +++ b/include/linux/fs.h @@ -1004,7 +1004,7 @@ static inline struct file *get_file(struct file *f) #define FL_DOWNGRADE_PENDING 256 /* Lease is being downgraded */ #define FL_UNLOCK_PENDING 512 /* Lease is being broken */ #define FL_OFDLCK 1024 /* lock is "owned" by struct file */ -#define FL_LAYOUT 2048 /* outstanding pNFS layout */ +#define FL_LAYOUT 2048 /* outstanding pNFS layout or user held pin */ #define FL_CLOSE_POSIX (FL_POSIX | FL_CLOSE) diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h index 9dc0bf0c5a6e..baddd54f3031 100644 --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h @@ -174,6 +174,9 @@ struct f_owner_ex { #define F_SHLCK 8 /* or 4 */ #endif +#define F_LAYOUT 16 /* layout lease to allow longterm pins such as + RDMA */ + /* operations for bsd flock(), also used by the kernel implementation */ #define LOCK_SH 1 /* shared lock */ #define LOCK_EX 2 /* exclusive lock */