Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Discuss least bad options for resolving longterm-GUP usage by RDMA
From: Jason Gunthorpe
Date: Thu Feb 07 2019 - 00:33:27 EST
On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 04:22:16PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 3:41 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > You're describing the current situation, i.e. Linux already implements
> > > this, it's called Device-DAX and some users of RDMA find it
> > > insufficient. The choices are to continue to tell them "no", or say
> > > "yes, but you need to submit to lease coordination".
> > Device-DAX is not what I'm imagining when I say XFS--.
> > I mean more like XFS with all features that require rellocation of
> > blocks disabled.
> > Forbidding hold punch, reflink, cow, etc, doesn't devolve back to
> > device-dax.
> True, not all the way, but the distinction loses significance as you
> lose fs features.
> Filesystems mark DAX functionality experimental  precisely because
> it forbids otherwise typical operations that work in the nominal page
> cache case. An approach that says "lets cement the list of things a
> filesystem or a core-memory-mangement facility can't do because RDMA
> finds it awkward" is bad precedent.
I'm not saying these rules should apply globaly.
I'm suggesting you could have a FS that supports gup_longterm by
design, and a FS that doesn't. And that is OK. They can have different
Obviously the golden case here is to use ODP (which doesn't call
gup_longterm at all) - that works for both.
Supporting non-ODP is a trade off case - users that want to run on
limited HW must accept limited functionality. Limited functionality is
better than no-funtionality.
Linux has many of these user-choose tradeoffs. This is how it supports
such a wide range of HW capabilities. Not all HW can do all
things. Some features really do need HW support. It has always been