Re: [PATCH] mm: fix missing wake-up event for FSDAX pages

[Jason Gunthorpe]

On Mon, Jul 11, 2022 at 07:39:17PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> Muchun Song wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 11:38:16AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 04, 2022 at 03:40:54PM +0800, Muchun Song wrote:
> > > > FSDAX page refcounts are 1-based, rather than 0-based: if refcount is
> > > > 1, then the page is freed.  The FSDAX pages can be pinned through GUP,
> > > > then they will be unpinned via unpin_user_page() using a folio variant
> > > > to put the page, however, folio variants did not consider this special
> > > > case, the result will be to miss a wakeup event (like the user of
> > > > __fuse_dax_break_layouts()).
> > > 
> > > Argh, no.  The 1-based refcounts are a blight on the entire kernel.
> > > They need to go away, not be pushed into folios as well.  I think
> > 
> > I would be happy if this could go away.
> 
> Continue to agree that this blight needs to end.
> 
> One of the pre-requisites to getting back to normal accounting of FSDAX
> page pin counts was to first drop the usage of get_dev_pagemap() in the
> GUP path:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/161604048257.1463742.1374527716381197629.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/
> 
> That work stalled on notifying mappers of surprise removal events of FSDAX pfns.

We already talked about this - once we have proper refcounting the
above is protected naturally by the proper refcounting. The reason it
is there is only because the refcount goes to 1 and the page is
re-used so the natural protection in GUP doesn't work.

We don't need surprise removal events to fix this, we need the FS side
to hold a reference when it puts the pages into the PTEs..

> So, once I dig out from a bit of CXL backlog and review that effort the
> next step that I see will be convert the FSDAX path to take typical
> references vmf_insert() time. Unless I am missing a shorter path to get
> this fixed up?

Yeah, just do this. IIRC Christoph already did all the infrastructure now,
just take the correct references and remove the special cases that
turn off the new infrastructure for fsdax.

When I looked at it a long while ago it seemd to require some
understanding of the fsdax code and exactly what the lifecycle model
was supposed to be there.

Jason