Re: [RFC V2 14/18] famfs_fuse: GET_DAXDEV message and daxdev_table

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 11:22:49AM -0500, John Groves wrote:
> On 25/08/14 08:25PM, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> > On Thu, 14 Aug 2025 at 19:19, Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > What happens if you want to have a fuse server that hosts both famfs
> > > files /and/ backing files?  That'd be pretty crazy to mix both paths in
> > > one filesystem, but it's in theory possible, particularly if the famfs
> > > server wanted to export a pseudofile where everyone could find that
> > > shadow file?
> > 
> > Either FUSE_DEV_IOC_BACKING_OPEN detects what kind of object it has
> > been handed, or we add a flag that explicitly says this is a dax dev
> > or a block dev or a regular file.  I'd prefer the latter.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Miklos
> 
> I have future ideas of famfs supporting non-dax-memory files in a mixed
> namespace with normal famfs dax files. This seems like the simplest way 
> to relax the "files are strictly pre-allocated" rule. But I think this 
> is orthogonal to how fmaps and backing devs are passed into the kernel. 
> 
> The way I'm thinking about it, the difference would be handled in
> read/write/mmap. Taking fuse_file_read_iter as the example, the code 
> currently looks like this:
> 
> 	if (FUSE_IS_VIRTIO_DAX(fi))
> 		return fuse_dax_read_iter(iocb, to);
> 	if (fuse_file_famfs(fi))
> 		return famfs_fuse_read_iter(iocb, to);
> 
> 	/* FOPEN_DIRECT_IO overrides FOPEN_PASSTHROUGH */
> 	if (ff->open_flags & FOPEN_DIRECT_IO)
> 		return fuse_direct_read_iter(iocb, to);
> 	else if (fuse_file_passthrough(ff))
> 		return fuse_passthrough_read_iter(iocb, to);
> 	else
> 		return fuse_cache_read_iter(iocb, to);
> 
> If the famfs fuse servert wants a particular file handled via another 
> mechanism -- e.g. READ message to server or passthrough -- the famfs 
> fuse server can just provide an fmap that indicates such.  Then 
> fuse_file_famfs(fi) would return false for that file, and it would be 
> handled through other existing mechanisms (which the famfs fuse 
> server would have to handle correctly).
> 
> Famfs could, for example, allow files to be created as generic or
> passthrough, and then have a "commit" step that allocated dax memory, 
> moved the data from a non-dax into dax, and appended the file to the 
> famfs metadata log - flipping the file to full-monty-famfs (tm). 
> Prior to the "commit", performance is less but all manner of mutations 
> could be allowed.
> 
> So I don't think this looks very be hard, and it's independent of the 
> mechanism by which fmaps get into the kernel.

This is one thing I wasn't planning -- iomap files are always that, and
there's no fallback to any of the other IO strategies.  The pagecache
handling parts of iomap require things such as i_rwsem controlling
access to a file no matter how many places it's hardlinked, and
timestamp/mode/acl handling working more or less the same way they do in
xfs and ext4.  iomap isn't all that congruent with the way that the
other IO paths (passthrough, writeback_cache, and "directio" files)
work.

Though to undercut my own point partially, sending an "inline data"
mapping to the kernel causes it to call FUSE_READ/FUSE_WRITE and then
you can inject whatever IO path you want.  OTOH the iomap inlinedata
paths are ... not well tested for pos > 0.

--D

> Regards,
> John
> 
> 
>