Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] virtiofs,fuse: support per-file DAX

On 7/21/21 3:18 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:

On Tue, Jul 20, 2021 at 01:25:11PM +0800, JeffleXu wrote:

quoted

On 7/20/21 5:30 AM, Vivek Goyal wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 06:47:49PM +0800, Jeffle Xu wrote:

quoted

This patchset adds support of per-file DAX for virtiofs, which is
inspired by Ira Weiny's work on ext4[1] and xfs[2].

There are three related scenarios:
1. Alloc inode: get per-file DAX flag from fuse_attr.flags. (patch 3)
2. Per-file DAX flag changes when the file has been opened. (patch 3)
In this case, the dentry and inode are all marked as DONT_CACHE, and
the DAX state won't be updated until the file is closed and reopened
later.
3. Users can change the per-file DAX flag inside the guest by chattr(1).
(patch 4)
4. Create new files under directories with DAX enabled. When creating
new files in ext4/xfs on host, the new created files will inherit the
per-file DAX flag from the directory, and thus the new created files in
virtiofs will also inherit the per-file DAX flag if the fuse server
derives fuse_attr.flags from the underlying ext4/xfs inode's per-file
DAX flag.

Thinking little bit more about this from requirement perspective. I think
we are trying to address two use cases here.

A. Client does not know which files DAX should be used on. Only server
   knows it and server passes this information to client. I suspect
   that's your primary use case.

Yes, this is the starting point of this patch set.

quoted

B. Client is driving which files are supposed to be using DAX. This is
   exactly same as the model ext4/xfs are using by storing a persistent
   flag on inode. 

Current patches seem to be a hybrid of both approach A and B. 

If we were to implement B, then fuse client probably needs to have the
capability to query FS_XFLAG_DAX on inode and decide whether to
enable DAX or not. (Without extra round trip). Or know it indirectly
by extending GETATTR and requesting this explicitly.

If guest queries if the file is DAX capable or not by an extra GETATTR,
I'm afraid this will add extra round trip.

Or if we add the DAX flag (ATTR_DAX) by extending LOOKUP, as done by
this patch set, then the FUSE server needs to set ATTR_DAX according to
the FS_XFLAG_DAX of the backend files, *to make the FS_XFLAG_DAX flag
previously set by FUSE client work*. Then it becomes a *mandatory*
requirement when implementing FUSE server. i.e., it becomes part of the
FUSE protocol rather than implementation specific. FUSE server can still
implement some other algorithm deciding whether to set ATTR_DAX or not,
though it must set ATTR_DAX once the backend file is flagged with
FS_XFLAG_DAX.

Besides, as you said, FUSE server needs to add one extra
GETFLAGS/FSGETXATTR ioctl per LOOKUP in this case. To eliminate this
cost, we could negotiate the per-file DAX capability during FUSE_INIT.
Only when the per-file DAX capability is negotiated, will the FUSE
server do extra GETFLAGS/FSGETXATTR ioctl and set ATTR_DAX flag when
doing LOOKUP.


Personally, I prefer the second way, i.e., by extending LOOKUP (adding
ATTR_DAX), to eliminate the extra round trip.

Negotiating a fuse feature say FUSE_FS_XFLAG_DAX makes sense. If
client is mounted with "-o dax=inode", then client will negotitate
this feature and if server does not support it, mount can fail.

But this probably will be binding on server that it needs to return
the state of FS_XFLAG_DAX attr on inode upon lookup/getattr. I don't
this will allow server to implement its own separate policy which
does not follow FS_XFLAG_DAX xattr. 

That means the backend fs must be ext4/xfs supporting per-file DAX feature.

If given more right to construct its own policy, FUSE server could
support per-file DAX upon other backend fs, though it will always fail
when virtiofs wants to set FS_XFLAG_DAX inside guest.

IOW, I don't think server can choose to implement its own policy
for enabling dax for "-o dax=inode".

If there is really a need to for something new where server needs
to dynamically decide which inodes should use dax (and not use
FS_XFLAG_FS), I guess that probably should be a separate mount
option say "-o dax=server" and it negotiates a separate feature
say FUSE_DAX_SERVER. Once that's negotiated, now both client
and server know that DAX will be used on files as determined
by server and not necessarily by using file attr FS_XFLAG_DAX.

So is "dax=inode" enough for your needs? What's your requirement,
can you give little bit of more details.

In our use case, the backend fs is something like SquashFS on host. The
content of the file on host is downloaded *as needed*. When the file is
not completely ready (completely downloaded), the guest will follow the
normal IO routine, i.e., by FUSE_READ/FUSE_WRITE request. While the file
is completely ready, per-file DAX is enabled for this file. IOW the FUSE
server need to dynamically decide if per-file DAX shall be enabled,
depending on if the file is completely downloaded.

Our strategy and design is still under discussion and may change. Any
comment and discussion is welcomed.

quoted

quoted

If we were only implementing A, then server does not have a way to 
tell client to enable DAX. Server can either look at FS_XFLAG_DAX
and decide to enable DAX or use some other property. Given querying
FS_XFLAG_DAX will be an extra ioctl() on every inode lookup/getattr,
it probably will be a server option. But enabling on server does not
mean client will enable it.

As I said previously, it can be negotiated whether this per-file DAX
capability is needed. Guest can advertise this capability when '-o
dax=inode' is configured.

quoted

I think my primary concern with this patch right now is trying to
figure out which requirement we are trying to cater to first and how
to connect server and client well so they both understand what mode
they are operating in and interact well.

-- 
Thanks,
Jeffle

-- 
Thanks,
Jeffle
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization