On Mon, Jun 04 2018 at 7:15pm -0400,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler(a)linux.intel.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 05:55:13PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Tue, May 29 2018 at 3:51pm -0400,
> Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler(a)linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > Currently the code in dm_dax_direct_access() only checks whether the target
> > type has a direct_access() operation defined, not whether the underlying
> > block devices all support DAX. This latter property can be seen by looking
> > at whether we set the QUEUE_FLAG_DAX request queue flag when creating the
> > DM device.
> Wait... I thought DAX support was all or nothing?
Right, it is, and that's what I'm trying to capture. The point of this series
is to make sure that we don't use DAX thru DM if one of the DM members doesn't
This is a bit tricky, though, because as you've pointed out there are a lot of
elements that go into a block device actually supporting DAX.
First, the block device has to have a direct_access() operation defined in its
struct dax_operations table. This is a static definition in the drivers,
though, so it's necessary but not sufficient. For example, the PMEM driver
always defines a direct_access() operation, but depending on the mode of the
namespace (raw, fsdax or sector) it may or may not support DAX.
The next step is that a driver needs to say that he block queue supports
QUEUE_FLAG_DAX. This again is necessary but not sufficient. The PMEM driver
currently sets this for all namespace modes, but I agree that this should be
restricted to modes that support DAX. Even once we do that, though, for the
block driver this isn't fully sufficient. We'd really like users to call
bdev_dax_supported() so it can run some additional tests to make sure that DAX
So, the real test that filesystems rely on is bdev_dax_suppported().
The trick is that with DM we need to verify each block device via
bdev_dax_supported() just like a filesystem would, and then have some way of
communicating the result of all those checks to the filesystem which is
eventually mounted on the DM device. At DAX mount time the filesystem will
call bdev_dax_supported() on the DM device, but it'll really only check the
So, the strategy is to have DM manually check each member device via
bdev_dax_supported() then if they all pass set QUEUE_FLAG_DAX. This then
becomes our one source of truth on whether or not a DM device supports DAX.
When the filesystem mounts with DAX support it'll also run
bdev_dax_supported(), but if we have QUEUE_FLAG_DAX set on the DM device, we
know that this check will pass.
> > This is problematic if we have, for example, a dm-linear device made up of
> > a PMEM namespace in fsdax mode followed by a ramdisk from BRD.
> > QUEUE_FLAG_DAX won't be set on the dm-linear device's request queue,
> > we have a working direct_access() entry point and the first member of the
> > dm-linear set *does* support DAX.
> If you don't have a uniformly capable device then it is very dangerous
> to advertise that the entire device has a certain capability. That
> completely bit me in the past with discard (because for every IO I
> wasn't then checking if the destination device supported discards).
> It is all well and good that you're adding that check here. But what I
> don't like is how you're saying QUEUE_FLAG_DAX implies direct_access()
> operation exists.. yet for raw PMEM namespaces we just discussed how
> that is a lie.
QUEUE_FLAG_DAX does imply that direct_access() exits. However, as discussed
above for a given bdev we really do need to check bdev_dax_supported().
> SO this type of change showcases how the QUEUE_FLAG_DAX doesn't _really_
> imply direct_access() exists.
> > This allows the user to create a filesystem on the dm-linear device, and
> > then mount it with DAX. The filesystem's bdev_dax_supported() test will
> > pass because it'll operate on the first member of the dm-linear device,
> > which happens to be a fsdax PMEM namespace.
> > All DAX I/O will then fail to that dm-linear device because the lack of
> > QUEUE_FLAG_DAX prevents fs_dax_get_by_bdev() from working. This means that
> > the struct dax_device isn't ever set in the filesystem, so
> > dax_direct_access() will always return -EOPNOTSUPP.
> Now you've lost me... these past 2 paragraphs. Why can a user mount it
> is DAX mode? Because bdev_dax_supported() only accesses the first
> portion (which happens to have DAX capabilities?)
Right. bdev_dax_supported() runs all of its checks, and because they are
running against the first block device in the dm set, they all pass. But the
overall DM device does not actually support DAX.
> Isn't this exactly why you should be checking for QUEUE_FLAG_DAX in the
> caller (bdev_dax_supported)? Why not use bdev_get_queue() and verify
> QUEUE_FLAG_DAX is set in there?
I'll look into that for the next revision, thanks.
Have you made any progress on a new revision?
> > By failing out of dm_dax_direct_access() if QUEUE_FLAG_DAX
isn't set we let
> > the filesystem know we don't support DAX at mount time. The filesystem
> > will then silently fall back and remove the dax mount option, causing it to
> > work properly.
> This shouldn't be needed. Again, QUEUE_FLAG_DAX wasn't set.. so don't
> allow code to falsely try operations that should've been gated by the
> fact it wasn't set.
Right, the goal is to make QUEUE_FLAG_DAX our one source of truth for whether
DM devices support DAX, and not have it half defined by that and half by the
My hope is that you can ignore the DM-internal book-keeping
(DM_TYPE_DAX_BIO_BASED) for now and just focus on fixing the real issue
of needing proper checking (as well as properly _not_ setting
QUEUE_FLAG_DAX in the case of pmem "raw").
Please advise, thanks Ross!