Re: [PATCH v12 6/7] xfs: Implement ->notify_failure() for XFS

[Dan Williams]

On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 11:10 PM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 07:06:40PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 5:04 PM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 11, 2022 at 12:09:03AM +0800, Shiyang Ruan wrote:
> > > > Introduce xfs_notify_failure.c to handle failure related works, such as
> > > > implement ->notify_failure(), register/unregister dax holder in xfs, and
> > > > so on.
> > > >
> > > > If the rmap feature of XFS enabled, we can query it to find files and
> > > > metadata which are associated with the corrupt data.  For now all we do
> > > > is kill processes with that file mapped into their address spaces, but
> > > > future patches could actually do something about corrupt metadata.
> > > >
> > > > After that, the memory failure needs to notify the processes who are
> > > > using those files.
> ...
> > > > @@ -1964,8 +1965,8 @@ xfs_alloc_buftarg(
> > > >       btp->bt_mount = mp;
> > > >       btp->bt_dev =  bdev->bd_dev;
> > > >       btp->bt_bdev = bdev;
> > > > -     btp->bt_daxdev = fs_dax_get_by_bdev(bdev, &btp->bt_dax_part_off, NULL,
> > > > -                                         NULL);
> > > > +     btp->bt_daxdev = fs_dax_get_by_bdev(bdev, &btp->bt_dax_part_off, mp,
> > > > +                                         &xfs_dax_holder_operations);
> > >
> > > I see a problem with this: we are setting up notify callbacks before
> > > we've even read in the superblock during mount. i.e. we don't even
> > > kow yet if we've got an XFS filesystem on this block device.
> > > Hence these notifications need to be delayed until after the
> > > filesystem is mounted, all the internal structures have been set up
> > > and log recovery has completed.
> >
> > So I think this gets back to the fact that there will eventually be 2
> > paths into this notifier.
>
> I'm not really concerned by how the notifications are generated;
> my concern is purely that notifications can be handled safely.
>
> > All that to say, I think it is ok / expected for the filesystem to
> > drop notifications on the floor when it is not ready to handle them.
>
> Well, yes. The whole point of notifications is the consumer makes
> the decision on what to do with the notification it receives - the
> producer of the notification does not (and can not) dictate what
> policy the consumer(s) implement...
>
> > For example there are no processes to send SIGBUS to if the filesystem
> > has not even finished mount.
>
> There may be not processes to send SIGBUS to even if the filesystem
> has finished mount. But we still want the notifications to be
> delivered and we still need to handle them safely.
>
> IOWs, while we might start by avoiding notifications during mount,
> this doesn't mean we will never have reason to process events during
> mount. What we do with this notification is going to evolve over
> time as we add new and adapt existing functionality....

Yes, sounds like we're on the same page. I had mistakenly interpreted
"Hence these notifications need to be delayed until after the
filesystem is mounted" as something the producer would need to handle,
but yes, consumer is free to drop if the notification arrives at an
inopportune time.