On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 05:14:36PM +0000, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
>> On Mon, 2016-04-25 at 01:31 -0700, hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> > On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 06:08:37PM +0000, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
>> > >
>> > > direct_IO might fail with -EINVAL due to misalignment, or -ENOMEM
>> > > due
>> > > to some allocation failing, and I thought we should return the
>> > > original
>> > > -EIO in such cases so that the application doesn't lose the
>> > > information
>> > > that the bad block is actually causing the error.
>> > EINVAL is a concern here. Not due to the right error reported, but
>> > because it means your current scheme is fundamentally broken - we
>> > need to support I/O at any alignment for DAX I/O, and not fail due to
>> > alignbment concernes for a highly specific degraded case.
>> >
>> > I think this whole series need to go back to the drawing board as I
>> > don't think it can actually rely on using direct I/O as the EIO
>> > fallback.
>> >
>> Agreed that DAX I/O can happen with any size/alignment, but how else do
>> we send an IO through the driver without alignment restrictions? Also,
>> the granularity at which we store badblocks is 512B sectors, so it
>> seems natural that to clear such a sector, you'd expect to send a write
>> to the whole sector.
>>
>> The expected usage flow is:
>>
>> - Application hits EIO doing dax_IO or load/store io
>>
>> - It checks badblocks and discovers it's files have lost data
>
> Lots of hand-waving here. How does the application map a bad
> "sector" to a file without scanning the entire filesystem to find
> the owner of the bad sector?
>
>> - It write()s those sectors (possibly converted to file offsets using
>> fiemap)
>> * This triggers the fallback path, but if the application is doing
>> this level of recovery, it will know the sector is bad, and write the
>> entire sector
>
> Where does the application find the data that was lost to be able to
> rewrite it?
>
>> - Or it replaces the entire file from backup also using write() (not
>> mmap+stores)
>> * This just frees the fs block, and the next time the block is
>> reallocated by the fs, it will likely be zeroed first, and that will be
>> done through the driver and will clear errors
>
> There's an implicit assumption that applications will keep redundant
> copies of their data at the /application layer/ and be able to
> automatically repair it? And then there's the implicit assumption
> that it will unlink and free the entire file before writing a new
> copy, and that then assumes the the filesystem will zero blocks if
> they get reused to clear errors on that LBA sector mapping before
> they are accessible again to userspace..
>
> It seems to me that there are a number of assumptions being made
> across multiple layers here. Maybe I've missed something - can you
> point me to the design/architecture description so I can see how
> "app does data recovery itself" dance is supposed to work?
>
Maybe I missed something, but all these assumptions are already
present for typical block devices, i.e. sectors may go bad and a write
may make the sector usable again. This patch series is extending that
out to the DAX-mmap case, but it's the same principle of "write to
clear error" that we live with in the block-I/O path. What
clarification are you looking for beyond that point?
|