Re: [PATCH v6 15/17] dax: add struct iomap based DAX PMD support

From: Jan Kara
Date: Thu Oct 13 2016 - 11:54:56 EST

On Wed 12-10-16 16:50:20, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> DAX PMDs have been disabled since Jan Kara introduced DAX radix tree based
> locking. This patch allows DAX PMDs to participate in the DAX radix tree
> based locking scheme so that they can be re-enabled using the new struct
> iomap based fault handlers.
> There are currently three types of DAX 4k entries: 4k zero pages, 4k DAX
> mappings that have an associated block allocation, and 4k DAX empty
> entries. The empty entries exist to provide locking for the duration of a
> given page fault.
> This patch adds three equivalent 2MiB DAX entries: Huge Zero Page (HZP)
> entries, PMD DAX entries that have associated block allocations, and 2 MiB
> DAX empty entries.
> Unlike the 4k case where we insert a struct page* into the radix tree for
> 4k zero pages, for HZP we insert a DAX exceptional entry with the new
> RADIX_DAX_HZP flag set. This is because we use a single 2 MiB zero page in
> every 2MiB hole mapping, and it doesn't make sense to have that same struct
> page* with multiple entries in multiple trees. This would cause contention
> on the single page lock for the one Huge Zero Page, and it would break the
> page->index and page->mapping associations that are assumed to be valid in
> many other places in the kernel.
> One difficult use case is when one thread is trying to use 4k entries in
> radix tree for a given offset, and another thread is using 2 MiB entries
> for that same offset. The current code handles this by making the 2 MiB
> user fall back to 4k entries for most cases. This was done because it is
> the simplest solution, and because the use of 2MiB pages is already
> opportunistic.
> If we were to try to upgrade from 4k pages to 2MiB pages for a given range,
> we run into the problem of how we lock out 4k page faults for the entire
> 2MiB range while we clean out the radix tree so we can insert the 2MiB
> entry. We can solve this problem if we need to, but I think that the cases
> where both 2MiB entries and 4K entries are being used for the same range
> will be rare enough and the gain small enough that it probably won't be
> worth the complexity.
> Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Just one small bug below. Feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>

after fixing that.

> /* No entry for given index? Make sure radix tree is big enough. */
> - if (!entry) {
> + if (!entry || pmd_downgrade) {
> int err;
> + if (pmd_downgrade) {
> + /*
> + * Make sure 'entry' remains valid while we drop
> + * mapping->tree_lock.
> + */
> + entry = lock_slot(mapping, slot);
> + }
> +
> spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> err = radix_tree_preload(
> mapping_gfp_mask(mapping) & ~__GFP_HIGHMEM);
> - if (err)
> + if (err) {
> + put_locked_mapping_entry(mapping, index, entry);

Better do this only in pmd_downgrade case...

Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>