lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Discuss least bad options for resolving longterm-GUP usage by RDMA
From
Date
On Wed, 2019-02-06 at 09:52 -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 10:31:14AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 10:50:00AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> >
> > > MM/FS asks for lease to be revoked. The revoke handler agrees with the
> > > other side on cancelling RDMA or whatever and drops the page pins.
> >
> > This takes a trip through userspace since the communication protocol
> > is entirely managed in userspace.
> >
> > Most existing communication protocols don't have a 'cancel operation'.
> >
> > > Now I understand there can be HW / communication failures etc. in
> > > which case the driver could either block waiting or make sure future
> > > IO will fail and drop the pins.
> >
> > We can always rip things away from the userspace.. However..
> >
> > > But under normal conditions there should be a way to revoke the
> > > access. And if the HW/driver cannot support this, then don't let it
> > > anywhere near DAX filesystem.
> >
> > I think the general observation is that people who want to do DAX &
> > RDMA want it to actually work, without data corruption, random process
> > kills or random communication failures.
> >
> > Really, few users would actually want to run in a system where revoke
> > can be triggered.
> >
> > So.. how can the FS/MM side provide a guarantee to the user that
> > revoke won't happen under a certain system design?
>
> Most of the cases we want revoke for are things like truncate().
> Shouldn't happen with a sane system, but we're trying to avoid users
> doing awful things like being able to DMA to pages that are now part of
> a different file.

Why is the solution revoke then? Is there something besides truncate
that we have to worry about? I ask because EBUSY is not currently
listed as a return value of truncate, so extending the API to include
EBUSY to mean "this file has pinned pages that can not be freed" is not
(or should not be) totally out of the question.

Admittedly, I'm coming in late to this conversation, but did I miss the
portion where that alternative was ruled out?

--
Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>
GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B 1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-06 19:33    [W:0.140 / U:3.712 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site