Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm: Trial do_wp_page() simplification

From: Jason Gunthorpe
Date: Mon Sep 21 2020 - 08:03:08 EST

On Mon, Sep 21, 2020 at 10:35:05AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > My thinking is to hit this issue you have to already be doing
> > FOLL_LONGTERM, and if some driver hasn't been properly marked and
> > regresses, the fix is to mark it.
> >
> > Remember, this use case requires the pin to extend after a system
> > call, past another fork() system call, and still have data-coherence.
> >
> > IMHO that can only happen in the FOLL_LONGTERM case as it inhernetly
> > means the lifetime of the pin is being controlled by userspace, not by
> > the kernel. Otherwise userspace could not cause new DMA touches after
> > fork.
> I agree that the new aggressive COW behavior is probably causing issues
> only for FOLL_LONGTERM users. That being said it would be nice if even
> ordinary threaded FOLL_PIN users would not have to be that careful about
> fork(2) and possible data loss due to COW - we had certainly reports of
> O_DIRECT IO loosing data due to fork(2) and COW exactly because it is very
> subtle how it behaves... But as I wrote above this is not urgent since that
> problematic behavior exists since the beginning of O_DIRECT IO in Linux.

Yes, I agree - what I was thinking is to do this FOLL_LONGTERM for the
rc and then a small patch to make it wider for the next cycle so it
can test in linux-next for a responsible time period.

Interesting to hear you confirm block has also seen subtle user
problems with this as well.