| Message ID | 20210830165302.60225-2-olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | revisit RMDA XDR padding management | expand |
Hi Olga- > On Aug 30, 2021, at 12:53 PM, Olga Kornievskaia <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> wrote: > > From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com> > > Given the patch "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC read layers", > RPC over RDMA doesn't need to look at the tail page and add that space > to the write chunk. > > For the RFC 8166 compliant server, it must not write an XDR padding > into the write chunk (even if space was provided). Historically > (before RFC 8166) Solaris RDMA server has been requiring the client > to provide space for the XDR padding and thus this client code has > existed. I don't understand this change. So, the upper layer doesn't provide XDR padding any more. That doesn't mean Solaris servers still aren't going to want to write into it. The client still has to provide this padding from somewhere. This suggests that "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC read layers" breaks our interop with Solaris servers. Does it? > Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com> > --- > net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c | 15 --------------- > 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c > index c335c1361564..2c4146bcf2a8 100644 > --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c > +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c > @@ -255,21 +255,6 @@ rpcrdma_convert_iovs(struct rpcrdma_xprt *r_xprt, struct xdr_buf *xdrbuf, > page_base = 0; > } > > - if (type == rpcrdma_readch) > - goto out; > - > - /* When encoding a Write chunk, some servers need to see an > - * extra segment for non-XDR-aligned Write chunks. The upper > - * layer provides space in the tail iovec that may be used > - * for this purpose. > - */ > - if (type == rpcrdma_writech && r_xprt->rx_ep->re_implicit_roundup) > - goto out; > - > - if (xdrbuf->tail[0].iov_len) Instead of checking for a tail, we could check if (xdr_pad_size(xdrbuf->page_len)) and provide some tail space in that case. > - rpcrdma_convert_kvec(&xdrbuf->tail[0], seg, &n); > - > -out: > if (unlikely(n > RPCRDMA_MAX_SEGS)) > return -EIO; > return n; > -- > 2.27.0 > -- Chuck Lever
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 1:04 PM Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hi Olga- > > > On Aug 30, 2021, at 12:53 PM, Olga Kornievskaia <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com> > > > > Given the patch "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC read layers", > > RPC over RDMA doesn't need to look at the tail page and add that space > > to the write chunk. > > > > For the RFC 8166 compliant server, it must not write an XDR padding > > into the write chunk (even if space was provided). Historically > > (before RFC 8166) Solaris RDMA server has been requiring the client > > to provide space for the XDR padding and thus this client code has > > existed. > > I don't understand this change. > > So, the upper layer doesn't provide XDR padding any more. That doesn't > mean Solaris servers still aren't going to want to write into it. The > client still has to provide this padding from somewhere. > > This suggests that "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC read > layers" breaks our interop with Solaris servers. Does it? No, I don't believe "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC read layers" breaks the interoperability. THIS patch would break the interop. If we are not willing to break the interoperability and support only servers that comply with RFC 8166, this patch is not needed. > > Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com> > > --- > > net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c | 15 --------------- > > 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c > > index c335c1361564..2c4146bcf2a8 100644 > > --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c > > +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c > > @@ -255,21 +255,6 @@ rpcrdma_convert_iovs(struct rpcrdma_xprt *r_xprt, struct xdr_buf *xdrbuf, > > page_base = 0; > > } > > > > - if (type == rpcrdma_readch) > > - goto out; > > - > > - /* When encoding a Write chunk, some servers need to see an > > - * extra segment for non-XDR-aligned Write chunks. The upper > > - * layer provides space in the tail iovec that may be used > > - * for this purpose. > > - */ > > - if (type == rpcrdma_writech && r_xprt->rx_ep->re_implicit_roundup) > > - goto out; > > - > > - if (xdrbuf->tail[0].iov_len) > > Instead of checking for a tail, we could check > > if (xdr_pad_size(xdrbuf->page_len)) > > and provide some tail space in that case. I don't believe this is any different than what we have now. If the page size is non-4byte aligned then, we would still allocate size for the padding which "SHOULD NOT" be there. But yes it is allowed to be there. The problem, as you know from our offline discussion, is allocating the tail page and including it in the write chunk for the Nvidia environment where Nvidia doesn't support use of data (user) pages and nfs kernel allocated pages in the same segment. Alternatively, my ask is then to change rpcrdma_convert_iovs() to return 2 segs instead of one: one for the pages and another for the tail. > > > - rpcrdma_convert_kvec(&xdrbuf->tail[0], seg, &n); > > - > > -out: > > if (unlikely(n > RPCRDMA_MAX_SEGS)) > > return -EIO; > > return n; > > -- > > 2.27.0 > > > > -- > Chuck Lever > > >
On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 13:24 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 1:04 PM Chuck Lever III > <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Olga- > > > > > On Aug 30, 2021, at 12:53 PM, Olga Kornievskaia > > > <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com> > > > > > > Given the patch "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC read > > > layers", > > > RPC over RDMA doesn't need to look at the tail page and add that > > > space > > > to the write chunk. > > > > > > For the RFC 8166 compliant server, it must not write an XDR > > > padding > > > into the write chunk (even if space was provided). Historically > > > (before RFC 8166) Solaris RDMA server has been requiring the > > > client > > > to provide space for the XDR padding and thus this client code > > > has > > > existed. > > > > I don't understand this change. > > > > So, the upper layer doesn't provide XDR padding any more. That > > doesn't > > mean Solaris servers still aren't going to want to write into it. > > The > > client still has to provide this padding from somewhere. > > > > This suggests that "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC read > > layers" breaks our interop with Solaris servers. Does it? > > No, I don't believe "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC read > layers" breaks the interoperability. THIS patch would break the > interop. > > If we are not willing to break the interoperability and support only > servers that comply with RFC 8166, this patch is not needed. Why? The intention of the first patch is to ensure that we do not have buffers that are not word aligned. If Solaris wants to write padding after the end of the file, then there is space in the page buffer for it to do so. There should be no need for an extra tail in which to write the padding. This means that the RDMA and TCP cases should end up doing the same thing for the case of the Solaris server: the padding is written into the page buffer. There is nothing written to the tail in either case. > > > > Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com> > > > --- > > > net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c | 15 --------------- > > > 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c > > > b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c > > > index c335c1361564..2c4146bcf2a8 100644 > > > --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c > > > +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c > > > @@ -255,21 +255,6 @@ rpcrdma_convert_iovs(struct rpcrdma_xprt > > > *r_xprt, struct xdr_buf *xdrbuf, > > > page_base = 0; > > > } > > > > > > - if (type == rpcrdma_readch) > > > - goto out; > > > - > > > - /* When encoding a Write chunk, some servers need to see an > > > - * extra segment for non-XDR-aligned Write chunks. The > > > upper > > > - * layer provides space in the tail iovec that may be used > > > - * for this purpose. > > > - */ > > > - if (type == rpcrdma_writech && r_xprt->rx_ep- > > > >re_implicit_roundup) > > > - goto out; > > > - > > > - if (xdrbuf->tail[0].iov_len) > > > > Instead of checking for a tail, we could check > > > > if (xdr_pad_size(xdrbuf->page_len)) > > > > and provide some tail space in that case. > > I don't believe this is any different than what we have now. If the > page size is non-4byte aligned then, we would still allocate size for > the padding which "SHOULD NOT" be there. But yes it is allowed to be > there. > > The problem, as you know from our offline discussion, is allocating > the tail page and including it in the write chunk for the Nvidia > environment where Nvidia doesn't support use of data (user) pages and > nfs kernel allocated pages in the same segment. > > Alternatively, my ask is then to change rpcrdma_convert_iovs() to > return 2 segs instead of one: one for the pages and another for the > tail. > > > > > > - rpcrdma_convert_kvec(&xdrbuf->tail[0], seg, &n); > > > - > > > -out: > > > if (unlikely(n > RPCRDMA_MAX_SEGS)) > > > return -EIO; > > > return n; > > > -- > > > 2.27.0 > > > > > > > -- > > Chuck Lever > > > > > >
> On Aug 30, 2021, at 1:24 PM, Olga Kornievskaia <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 1:04 PM Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> Hi Olga- >> >>> On Aug 30, 2021, at 12:53 PM, Olga Kornievskaia <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com> >>> >>> Given the patch "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC read layers", >>> RPC over RDMA doesn't need to look at the tail page and add that space >>> to the write chunk. >>> >>> For the RFC 8166 compliant server, it must not write an XDR padding >>> into the write chunk (even if space was provided). Historically >>> (before RFC 8166) Solaris RDMA server has been requiring the client >>> to provide space for the XDR padding and thus this client code has >>> existed. >> >> I don't understand this change. >> >> So, the upper layer doesn't provide XDR padding any more. That doesn't >> mean Solaris servers still aren't going to want to write into it. The >> client still has to provide this padding from somewhere. >> >> This suggests that "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC read >> layers" breaks our interop with Solaris servers. Does it? > > No, I don't believe "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC read > layers" breaks the interoperability. THIS patch would break the > interop. > > If we are not willing to break the interoperability and support only > servers that comply with RFC 8166, this patch is not needed. > >>> Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com> >>> --- >>> net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c | 15 --------------- >>> 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c >>> index c335c1361564..2c4146bcf2a8 100644 >>> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c >>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c >>> @@ -255,21 +255,6 @@ rpcrdma_convert_iovs(struct rpcrdma_xprt *r_xprt, struct xdr_buf *xdrbuf, >>> page_base = 0; >>> } >>> >>> - if (type == rpcrdma_readch) >>> - goto out; >>> - >>> - /* When encoding a Write chunk, some servers need to see an >>> - * extra segment for non-XDR-aligned Write chunks. The upper >>> - * layer provides space in the tail iovec that may be used >>> - * for this purpose. >>> - */ >>> - if (type == rpcrdma_writech && r_xprt->rx_ep->re_implicit_roundup) >>> - goto out; >>> - >>> - if (xdrbuf->tail[0].iov_len) >> >> Instead of checking for a tail, we could check >> >> if (xdr_pad_size(xdrbuf->page_len)) >> >> and provide some tail space in that case. > > I don't believe this is any different than what we have now. If the > page size is non-4byte aligned then, we would still allocate size for > the padding which "SHOULD NOT" be there. But yes it is allowed to be > there. > > The problem, as you know from our offline discussion, is allocating > the tail page and including it in the write chunk for the Nvidia > environment where Nvidia doesn't support use of data (user) pages and > nfs kernel allocated pages in the same segment. > > Alternatively, my ask is then to change rpcrdma_convert_iovs() to > return 2 segs instead of one: one for the pages and another for the > tail. At this point, it's clear that the Nvidia proof-of-concept is using features that are not available in the stock upstream RDMA stack. I'm not sympathetic to making code changes to accommodate them unless or until the upstream RDMA ecosystem can deal properly with their use case. (they are of course free to modify the code themselves, it's just not likely to get merged). We'd have to poll the set of deployed Solaris servers to understand whether it is safe to remove this logic. >>> - rpcrdma_convert_kvec(&xdrbuf->tail[0], seg, &n); >>> - >>> -out: >>> if (unlikely(n > RPCRDMA_MAX_SEGS)) >>> return -EIO; >>> return n; >>> -- >>> 2.27.0 >>> >> >> -- >> Chuck Lever -- Chuck Lever
> On Aug 30, 2021, at 1:34 PM, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 13:24 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 1:04 PM Chuck Lever III >> <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Olga- >>> >>>> On Aug 30, 2021, at 12:53 PM, Olga Kornievskaia >>>> <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com> >>>> >>>> Given the patch "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC read >>>> layers", >>>> RPC over RDMA doesn't need to look at the tail page and add that >>>> space >>>> to the write chunk. >>>> >>>> For the RFC 8166 compliant server, it must not write an XDR >>>> padding >>>> into the write chunk (even if space was provided). Historically >>>> (before RFC 8166) Solaris RDMA server has been requiring the >>>> client >>>> to provide space for the XDR padding and thus this client code >>>> has >>>> existed. >>> >>> I don't understand this change. >>> >>> So, the upper layer doesn't provide XDR padding any more. That >>> doesn't >>> mean Solaris servers still aren't going to want to write into it. >>> The >>> client still has to provide this padding from somewhere. >>> >>> This suggests that "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC read >>> layers" breaks our interop with Solaris servers. Does it? >> >> No, I don't believe "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC read >> layers" breaks the interoperability. THIS patch would break the >> interop. >> >> If we are not willing to break the interoperability and support only >> servers that comply with RFC 8166, this patch is not needed. > > Why? The intention of the first patch is to ensure that we do not have > buffers that are not word aligned. If Solaris wants to write padding > after the end of the file, then there is space in the page buffer for > it to do so. There should be no need for an extra tail in which to > write the padding. The RPC/RDMA protocol is designed for hardware-offloaded direct data placement. That means the padding, which isn't data, must be directed to another buffer. This is a problem with RPC/RDMA v1 implementations. RFC 5666 was ambiguous, so there are implementations that write XDR padding into Write chunks. This is why RFC 8166 says SHOULD NOT instead of MUST NOT. I believe rpcrdma-version-two makes it a requirement not to use XDR padding in either Read or Write data payload chunks. > This means that the RDMA and TCP cases should end up doing the same > thing for the case of the Solaris server: the padding is written into > the page buffer. There is nothing written to the tail in either case. "Always provide" can guarantee that the NFS client makes aligned requests for buffered I/O, but what about NFS direct I/O from user space? The NIC will place the data payload in the application buffer, but there's no guarantee that the NFS READ request will be aligned or that the buffer will be able to sink the extra padding bytes. We would definitely consider it an error if an unaligned RDMA Read leaked the link-layer's 4-byte padding into a sink buffer. So, "Always provide" is nice for the in-kernel NFS client, but I don't believe it allows the way xprtrdma behaves to be changed. >>>> Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com> >>>> --- >>>> net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c | 15 --------------- >>>> 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c >>>> b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c >>>> index c335c1361564..2c4146bcf2a8 100644 >>>> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c >>>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c >>>> @@ -255,21 +255,6 @@ rpcrdma_convert_iovs(struct rpcrdma_xprt >>>> *r_xprt, struct xdr_buf *xdrbuf, >>>> page_base = 0; >>>> } >>>> >>>> - if (type == rpcrdma_readch) >>>> - goto out; >>>> - >>>> - /* When encoding a Write chunk, some servers need to see an >>>> - * extra segment for non-XDR-aligned Write chunks. The >>>> upper >>>> - * layer provides space in the tail iovec that may be used >>>> - * for this purpose. >>>> - */ >>>> - if (type == rpcrdma_writech && r_xprt->rx_ep- >>>>> re_implicit_roundup) >>>> - goto out; >>>> - >>>> - if (xdrbuf->tail[0].iov_len) >>> >>> Instead of checking for a tail, we could check >>> >>> if (xdr_pad_size(xdrbuf->page_len)) >>> >>> and provide some tail space in that case. >> >> I don't believe this is any different than what we have now. If the >> page size is non-4byte aligned then, we would still allocate size for >> the padding which "SHOULD NOT" be there. But yes it is allowed to be >> there. >> >> The problem, as you know from our offline discussion, is allocating >> the tail page and including it in the write chunk for the Nvidia >> environment where Nvidia doesn't support use of data (user) pages and >> nfs kernel allocated pages in the same segment. >> >> Alternatively, my ask is then to change rpcrdma_convert_iovs() to >> return 2 segs instead of one: one for the pages and another for the >> tail. >> >>> >>>> - rpcrdma_convert_kvec(&xdrbuf->tail[0], seg, &n); >>>> - >>>> -out: >>>> if (unlikely(n > RPCRDMA_MAX_SEGS)) >>>> return -EIO; >>>> return n; >>>> -- >>>> 2.27.0 >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Chuck Lever >>> >>> >>> > > -- > Trond Myklebust > Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace > trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com -- Chuck Lever
On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 18:02 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote: > > > > On Aug 30, 2021, at 1:34 PM, Trond Myklebust > > <trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 13:24 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 1:04 PM Chuck Lever III > > > <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Olga- > > > > > > > > > On Aug 30, 2021, at 12:53 PM, Olga Kornievskaia > > > > > <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com> > > > > > > > > > > Given the patch "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC > > > > > read > > > > > layers", > > > > > RPC over RDMA doesn't need to look at the tail page and add > > > > > that > > > > > space > > > > > to the write chunk. > > > > > > > > > > For the RFC 8166 compliant server, it must not write an XDR > > > > > padding > > > > > into the write chunk (even if space was provided). > > > > > Historically > > > > > (before RFC 8166) Solaris RDMA server has been requiring the > > > > > client > > > > > to provide space for the XDR padding and thus this client > > > > > code > > > > > has > > > > > existed. > > > > > > > > I don't understand this change. > > > > > > > > So, the upper layer doesn't provide XDR padding any more. That > > > > doesn't > > > > mean Solaris servers still aren't going to want to write into > > > > it. > > > > The > > > > client still has to provide this padding from somewhere. > > > > > > > > This suggests that "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC > > > > read > > > > layers" breaks our interop with Solaris servers. Does it? > > > > > > No, I don't believe "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC > > > read > > > layers" breaks the interoperability. THIS patch would break the > > > interop. > > > > > > If we are not willing to break the interoperability and support > > > only > > > servers that comply with RFC 8166, this patch is not needed. > > > > Why? The intention of the first patch is to ensure that we do not > > have > > buffers that are not word aligned. If Solaris wants to write > > padding > > after the end of the file, then there is space in the page buffer > > for > > it to do so. There should be no need for an extra tail in which to > > write the padding. > > The RPC/RDMA protocol is designed for hardware-offloaded direct data > placement. That means the padding, which isn't data, must be directed > to another buffer. > > This is a problem with RPC/RDMA v1 implementations. RFC 5666 was > ambiguous, so there are implementations that write XDR padding into > Write chunks. This is why RFC 8166 says SHOULD NOT instead of MUST > NOT. > > I believe rpcrdma-version-two makes it a requirement not to use XDR > padding in either Read or Write data payload chunks. > > Correct, but in order to satisfy the needs of the Solaris server, you've hijacked the tail for use as a data buffer. AFAICS it is not being used as a SEND buffer target, but is instead being turned into a write chunk target. That is not acceptable! It means that we now are limited to creating COMPOUNDs where there are no more operations following the READ op because if we do so, we end up with a situation where the RDMA behaviour breaks. > > This means that the RDMA and TCP cases should end up doing the same > > thing for the case of the Solaris server: the padding is written > > into > > the page buffer. There is nothing written to the tail in either > > case. > > "Always provide" can guarantee that the NFS client makes aligned > requests for buffered I/O, but what about NFS direct I/O from user > space? The NIC will place the data payload in the application > buffer, but there's no guarantee that the NFS READ request will be > aligned or that the buffer will be able to sink the extra padding > bytes. > > We would definitely consider it an error if an unaligned RDMA Read > leaked the link-layer's 4-byte padding into a sink buffer. > > So, "Always provide" is nice for the in-kernel NFS client, but I > don't believe it allows the way xprtrdma behaves to be changed. > If you're doing an unaligned READ from user space then you are already in a situation where you're doing something that is incompatible with block device requirements. If there really are any applications that contain O_DIRECT code specifically for use with NFS, then we can artificially force the buffers to be aligned by reducing the size of the buffer to align to a 4 byte boundary. NFS supports returning short reads. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c | 15 --------------- > > > > > 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c > > > > > b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c > > > > > index c335c1361564..2c4146bcf2a8 100644 > > > > > --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c > > > > > +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c > > > > > @@ -255,21 +255,6 @@ rpcrdma_convert_iovs(struct rpcrdma_xprt > > > > > *r_xprt, struct xdr_buf *xdrbuf, > > > > > page_base = 0; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > - if (type == rpcrdma_readch) > > > > > - goto out; > > > > > - > > > > > - /* When encoding a Write chunk, some servers need to > > > > > see an > > > > > - * extra segment for non-XDR-aligned Write chunks. The > > > > > upper > > > > > - * layer provides space in the tail iovec that may be > > > > > used > > > > > - * for this purpose. > > > > > - */ > > > > > - if (type == rpcrdma_writech && r_xprt->rx_ep- > > > > > > re_implicit_roundup) > > > > > - goto out; > > > > > - > > > > > - if (xdrbuf->tail[0].iov_len) > > > > > > > > Instead of checking for a tail, we could check > > > > > > > > if (xdr_pad_size(xdrbuf->page_len)) > > > > > > > > and provide some tail space in that case. > > > > > > I don't believe this is any different than what we have now. If > > > the > > > page size is non-4byte aligned then, we would still allocate size > > > for > > > the padding which "SHOULD NOT" be there. But yes it is allowed to > > > be > > > there. > > > > > > The problem, as you know from our offline discussion, is > > > allocating > > > the tail page and including it in the write chunk for the Nvidia > > > environment where Nvidia doesn't support use of data (user) pages > > > and > > > nfs kernel allocated pages in the same segment. > > > > > > Alternatively, my ask is then to change rpcrdma_convert_iovs() to > > > return 2 segs instead of one: one for the pages and another for > > > the > > > tail. > > > > > > > > > > > > - rpcrdma_convert_kvec(&xdrbuf->tail[0], seg, > > > > > &n); > > > > > - > > > > > -out: > > > > > if (unlikely(n > RPCRDMA_MAX_SEGS)) > > > > > return -EIO; > > > > > return n; > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.27.0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Chuck Lever > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Trond Myklebust > > Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace > > trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com > > -- > Chuck Lever > > >
> On Aug 30, 2021, at 2:18 PM, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 18:02 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote: >> >> >>> On Aug 30, 2021, at 1:34 PM, Trond Myklebust >>> <trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote: >>> >>> On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 13:24 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: >>>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 1:04 PM Chuck Lever III >>>> <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Olga- >>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 30, 2021, at 12:53 PM, Olga Kornievskaia >>>>>> <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> Given the patch "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC >>>>>> read >>>>>> layers", >>>>>> RPC over RDMA doesn't need to look at the tail page and add >>>>>> that >>>>>> space >>>>>> to the write chunk. >>>>>> >>>>>> For the RFC 8166 compliant server, it must not write an XDR >>>>>> padding >>>>>> into the write chunk (even if space was provided). >>>>>> Historically >>>>>> (before RFC 8166) Solaris RDMA server has been requiring the >>>>>> client >>>>>> to provide space for the XDR padding and thus this client >>>>>> code >>>>>> has >>>>>> existed. >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand this change. >>>>> >>>>> So, the upper layer doesn't provide XDR padding any more. That >>>>> doesn't >>>>> mean Solaris servers still aren't going to want to write into >>>>> it. >>>>> The >>>>> client still has to provide this padding from somewhere. >>>>> >>>>> This suggests that "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC >>>>> read >>>>> layers" breaks our interop with Solaris servers. Does it? >>>> >>>> No, I don't believe "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC >>>> read >>>> layers" breaks the interoperability. THIS patch would break the >>>> interop. >>>> >>>> If we are not willing to break the interoperability and support >>>> only >>>> servers that comply with RFC 8166, this patch is not needed. >>> >>> Why? The intention of the first patch is to ensure that we do not >>> have >>> buffers that are not word aligned. If Solaris wants to write >>> padding >>> after the end of the file, then there is space in the page buffer >>> for >>> it to do so. There should be no need for an extra tail in which to >>> write the padding. >> >> The RPC/RDMA protocol is designed for hardware-offloaded direct data >> placement. That means the padding, which isn't data, must be directed >> to another buffer. >> >> This is a problem with RPC/RDMA v1 implementations. RFC 5666 was >> ambiguous, so there are implementations that write XDR padding into >> Write chunks. This is why RFC 8166 says SHOULD NOT instead of MUST >> NOT. >> >> I believe rpcrdma-version-two makes it a requirement not to use XDR >> padding in either Read or Write data payload chunks. >> >> > Correct, but in order to satisfy the needs of the Solaris server, > you've hijacked the tail for use as a data buffer. AFAICS it is not > being used as a SEND buffer target, but is instead being turned into a > write chunk target. That is not acceptable! The buffer is being used as both. Proper function depends on the order of RDMA Writes and Receives on the client. rpcrdma_encode_write_list() registers up to an extra 3 bytes in rq_rcv_buf.tail as part of the Write chunk. The R_keys for the segments in the Write chunk are then sent to the server as part of the RPC Call. As part of Replying, the server RDMA Writes data into the chunk, and possibly also RDMA Writes padding. It then does an RDMA Send containing the RPC Reply. The Send data always lands in the Receive buffer _after_ the Write data. The Receive completion guarantees that previous RDMA Writes are complete. Receive handling invalidates and unmaps the memory, and then it is made available to the RPC client. > It means that we now are limited to creating COMPOUNDs where there are > no more operations following the READ op because if we do so, we end up > with a situation where the RDMA behaviour breaks. I haven't heard reports of a problem like this. However, if there is a problem, it would be simple to create a persistently-registered memory region that is not part of any RPC buffer that can be used to catch unused Write chunk XDR padding. >>> This means that the RDMA and TCP cases should end up doing the same >>> thing for the case of the Solaris server: the padding is written >>> into >>> the page buffer. There is nothing written to the tail in either >>> case. >> >> "Always provide" can guarantee that the NFS client makes aligned >> requests for buffered I/O, but what about NFS direct I/O from user >> space? The NIC will place the data payload in the application >> buffer, but there's no guarantee that the NFS READ request will be >> aligned or that the buffer will be able to sink the extra padding >> bytes. >> >> We would definitely consider it an error if an unaligned RDMA Read >> leaked the link-layer's 4-byte padding into a sink buffer. >> >> So, "Always provide" is nice for the in-kernel NFS client, but I >> don't believe it allows the way xprtrdma behaves to be changed. >> > > If you're doing an unaligned READ from user space then you are already > in a situation where you're doing something that is incompatible with > block device requirements. > If there really are any applications that contain O_DIRECT code > specifically for use with NFS, then we can artificially force the > buffers to be aligned by reducing the size of the buffer to align to a > 4 byte boundary. NFS supports returning short reads. Or xprtrdma can use the scheme I describe above. I think that would be simpler and would avoid layering violations. That would also possibly address the Nvidia problem, since a pre-registered MR that handles Write padding would always be a separate RDMA segment. Again, I doubt this is necessary to fix any operational problem with _supported_ use cases, but let me know if you'd like me to make this change. >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c | 15 --------------- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c >>>>>> b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c >>>>>> index c335c1361564..2c4146bcf2a8 100644 >>>>>> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c >>>>>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c >>>>>> @@ -255,21 +255,6 @@ rpcrdma_convert_iovs(struct rpcrdma_xprt >>>>>> *r_xprt, struct xdr_buf *xdrbuf, >>>>>> page_base = 0; >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> - if (type == rpcrdma_readch) >>>>>> - goto out; >>>>>> - >>>>>> - /* When encoding a Write chunk, some servers need to >>>>>> see an >>>>>> - * extra segment for non-XDR-aligned Write chunks. The >>>>>> upper >>>>>> - * layer provides space in the tail iovec that may be >>>>>> used >>>>>> - * for this purpose. >>>>>> - */ >>>>>> - if (type == rpcrdma_writech && r_xprt->rx_ep- >>>>>>> re_implicit_roundup) >>>>>> - goto out; >>>>>> - >>>>>> - if (xdrbuf->tail[0].iov_len) >>>>> >>>>> Instead of checking for a tail, we could check >>>>> >>>>> if (xdr_pad_size(xdrbuf->page_len)) >>>>> >>>>> and provide some tail space in that case. >>>> >>>> I don't believe this is any different than what we have now. If >>>> the >>>> page size is non-4byte aligned then, we would still allocate size >>>> for >>>> the padding which "SHOULD NOT" be there. But yes it is allowed to >>>> be >>>> there. >>>> >>>> The problem, as you know from our offline discussion, is >>>> allocating >>>> the tail page and including it in the write chunk for the Nvidia >>>> environment where Nvidia doesn't support use of data (user) pages >>>> and >>>> nfs kernel allocated pages in the same segment. >>>> >>>> Alternatively, my ask is then to change rpcrdma_convert_iovs() to >>>> return 2 segs instead of one: one for the pages and another for >>>> the >>>> tail. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> - rpcrdma_convert_kvec(&xdrbuf->tail[0], seg, >>>>>> &n); >>>>>> - >>>>>> -out: >>>>>> if (unlikely(n > RPCRDMA_MAX_SEGS)) >>>>>> return -EIO; >>>>>> return n; >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 2.27.0 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Chuck Lever >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Trond Myklebust >>> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace >>> trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com >> >> -- >> Chuck Lever >> >> >> > > -- > Trond Myklebust > Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace > trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com -- Chuck Lever
> On Aug 30, 2021, at 4:37 PM, Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: > >> On Aug 30, 2021, at 2:18 PM, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote: >> >> On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 18:02 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote: >>> >>>> On Aug 30, 2021, at 1:34 PM, Trond Myklebust >>>> <trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 13:24 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 1:04 PM Chuck Lever III >>>>> <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Olga- >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Aug 30, 2021, at 12:53 PM, Olga Kornievskaia >>>>>>> <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Given the patch "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC >>>>>>> read >>>>>>> layers", >>>>>>> RPC over RDMA doesn't need to look at the tail page and add >>>>>>> that >>>>>>> space >>>>>>> to the write chunk. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For the RFC 8166 compliant server, it must not write an XDR >>>>>>> padding >>>>>>> into the write chunk (even if space was provided). >>>>>>> Historically >>>>>>> (before RFC 8166) Solaris RDMA server has been requiring the >>>>>>> client >>>>>>> to provide space for the XDR padding and thus this client >>>>>>> code >>>>>>> has >>>>>>> existed. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't understand this change. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, the upper layer doesn't provide XDR padding any more. That >>>>>> doesn't >>>>>> mean Solaris servers still aren't going to want to write into >>>>>> it. >>>>>> The >>>>>> client still has to provide this padding from somewhere. >>>>>> >>>>>> This suggests that "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC >>>>>> read >>>>>> layers" breaks our interop with Solaris servers. Does it? >>>>> >>>>> No, I don't believe "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC >>>>> read >>>>> layers" breaks the interoperability. THIS patch would break the >>>>> interop. >>>>> >>>>> If we are not willing to break the interoperability and support >>>>> only >>>>> servers that comply with RFC 8166, this patch is not needed. >>>> >>>> Why? The intention of the first patch is to ensure that we do not >>>> have >>>> buffers that are not word aligned. If Solaris wants to write >>>> padding >>>> after the end of the file, then there is space in the page buffer >>>> for >>>> it to do so. There should be no need for an extra tail in which to >>>> write the padding. >>> >>> The RPC/RDMA protocol is designed for hardware-offloaded direct data >>> placement. That means the padding, which isn't data, must be directed >>> to another buffer. >>> >>> This is a problem with RPC/RDMA v1 implementations. RFC 5666 was >>> ambiguous, so there are implementations that write XDR padding into >>> Write chunks. This is why RFC 8166 says SHOULD NOT instead of MUST >>> NOT. >>> >>> I believe rpcrdma-version-two makes it a requirement not to use XDR >>> padding in either Read or Write data payload chunks. >>> >>> >> Correct, but in order to satisfy the needs of the Solaris server, >> you've hijacked the tail for use as a data buffer. AFAICS it is not >> being used as a SEND buffer target, but is instead being turned into a >> write chunk target. That is not acceptable! > > The buffer is being used as both. Proper function depends on the > order of RDMA Writes and Receives on the client. I've refreshed my memory. The above statement oversimplifies a bit. - The memory pointed to by rqst->rq_buffer is persistently registered to allow RDMA Send from it. It can also be registered on the fly for use in Read chunks. - The memory pointed to by rqst->rq_rbuffer is NOT persistently registered and is never used for RDMA Send or Receive. It can be registered on the fly for use in a Write or Reply chunk. This is when the tail portion of rq_rcv_buf might be used to receive a pad. - A third set of persistently registered buffers is used ONLY to catch RDMA Receive completions. When a Receive completes, the reply handler decides how to construct the received RPC message. If there was a Reply chunk, it leaves rq_rcv_buf pointing to rq_rbuffer, as that's where the server wrote the Reply chunk. If there wasn't a Reply chunk, the handler points rq_rcv_buf to the RDMA Receive buffer. The only case where there might be overlap is when the client has provisioned both a Write chunk and a Reply chunk. In that case, yes, I can see that there might be an opportunity for the server to RDMA Write the Write chunk's pad and the Reply chunk into the same client memory buffer. However: - Most servers don't write a pad. Modern Solaris servers behave "correctly" in this regard, I'm now told. Linux never writes the pad, and I'm told OnTAP also does not. - Server implementations I'm aware of Write the Write chunk first and then the Reply chunk. The Reply chunk would overwrite the pad. - The client hardly ever uses Write + Reply. It's most often one or the other. So again, there is little to zero chance there is an existing operational issue here. But see below. > rpcrdma_encode_write_list() registers up to an extra 3 bytes in > rq_rcv_buf.tail as part of the Write chunk. The R_keys for the > segments in the Write chunk are then sent to the server as part > of the RPC Call. > > As part of Replying, the server RDMA Writes data into the chunk, > and possibly also RDMA Writes padding. It then does an RDMA Send > containing the RPC Reply. > > The Send data always lands in the Receive buffer _after_ the Write > data. The Receive completion guarantees that previous RDMA Writes > are complete. Receive handling invalidates and unmaps the memory, > and then it is made available to the RPC client. > > >> It means that we now are limited to creating COMPOUNDs where there are >> no more operations following the READ op because if we do so, we end up >> with a situation where the RDMA behaviour breaks. > > I haven't heard reports of a problem like this. > > However, if there is a problem, it would be simple to create a > persistently-registered memory region that is not part of any RPC > buffer that can be used to catch unused Write chunk XDR padding. > > >>>> This means that the RDMA and TCP cases should end up doing the same >>>> thing for the case of the Solaris server: the padding is written >>>> into >>>> the page buffer. There is nothing written to the tail in either >>>> case. >>> >>> "Always provide" can guarantee that the NFS client makes aligned >>> requests for buffered I/O, but what about NFS direct I/O from user >>> space? The NIC will place the data payload in the application >>> buffer, but there's no guarantee that the NFS READ request will be >>> aligned or that the buffer will be able to sink the extra padding >>> bytes. >>> >>> We would definitely consider it an error if an unaligned RDMA Read >>> leaked the link-layer's 4-byte padding into a sink buffer. >>> >>> So, "Always provide" is nice for the in-kernel NFS client, but I >>> don't believe it allows the way xprtrdma behaves to be changed. >>> >> >> If you're doing an unaligned READ from user space then you are already >> in a situation where you're doing something that is incompatible with >> block device requirements. >> If there really are any applications that contain O_DIRECT code >> specifically for use with NFS, then we can artificially force the >> buffers to be aligned by reducing the size of the buffer to align to a >> 4 byte boundary. NFS supports returning short reads. > > Or xprtrdma can use the scheme I describe above. I think that > would be simpler and would avoid layering violations. > > That would also possibly address the Nvidia problem, since a > pre-registered MR that handles Write padding would always be a > separate RDMA segment. > > Again, I doubt this is necessary to fix any operational problem > with _supported_ use cases, but let me know if you'd like me to > make this change. Since RFC 8666 says "SHOULD NOT", the spec mandates that the client has to expect there might be a server that will RDMA Write the XDR pad, so the Linux client really should always provide one. Having a persistently registered spot to use for that means we have a potential no-cost mechanism for providing that extra segment. The whole "pad optimization" thing was because the pad segment is currently registered on the fly, so it has a per-I/O cost. So I'm leaning toward implementing this simple solution, at least as proof-of-concept. -- Chuck Lever
On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 4:38 PM Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 30, 2021, at 2:18 PM, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 18:02 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote: > >> > >> > >>> On Aug 30, 2021, at 1:34 PM, Trond Myklebust > >>> <trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 13:24 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > >>>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 1:04 PM Chuck Lever III > >>>> <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Olga- > >>>>> > >>>>>> On Aug 30, 2021, at 12:53 PM, Olga Kornievskaia > >>>>>> <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Given the patch "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC > >>>>>> read > >>>>>> layers", > >>>>>> RPC over RDMA doesn't need to look at the tail page and add > >>>>>> that > >>>>>> space > >>>>>> to the write chunk. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> For the RFC 8166 compliant server, it must not write an XDR > >>>>>> padding > >>>>>> into the write chunk (even if space was provided). > >>>>>> Historically > >>>>>> (before RFC 8166) Solaris RDMA server has been requiring the > >>>>>> client > >>>>>> to provide space for the XDR padding and thus this client > >>>>>> code > >>>>>> has > >>>>>> existed. > >>>>> > >>>>> I don't understand this change. > >>>>> > >>>>> So, the upper layer doesn't provide XDR padding any more. That > >>>>> doesn't > >>>>> mean Solaris servers still aren't going to want to write into > >>>>> it. > >>>>> The > >>>>> client still has to provide this padding from somewhere. > >>>>> > >>>>> This suggests that "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC > >>>>> read > >>>>> layers" breaks our interop with Solaris servers. Does it? > >>>> > >>>> No, I don't believe "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC > >>>> read > >>>> layers" breaks the interoperability. THIS patch would break the > >>>> interop. > >>>> > >>>> If we are not willing to break the interoperability and support > >>>> only > >>>> servers that comply with RFC 8166, this patch is not needed. > >>> > >>> Why? The intention of the first patch is to ensure that we do not > >>> have > >>> buffers that are not word aligned. If Solaris wants to write > >>> padding > >>> after the end of the file, then there is space in the page buffer > >>> for > >>> it to do so. There should be no need for an extra tail in which to > >>> write the padding. > >> > >> The RPC/RDMA protocol is designed for hardware-offloaded direct data > >> placement. That means the padding, which isn't data, must be directed > >> to another buffer. > >> > >> This is a problem with RPC/RDMA v1 implementations. RFC 5666 was > >> ambiguous, so there are implementations that write XDR padding into > >> Write chunks. This is why RFC 8166 says SHOULD NOT instead of MUST > >> NOT. > >> > >> I believe rpcrdma-version-two makes it a requirement not to use XDR > >> padding in either Read or Write data payload chunks. > >> > >> > > Correct, but in order to satisfy the needs of the Solaris server, > > you've hijacked the tail for use as a data buffer. AFAICS it is not > > being used as a SEND buffer target, but is instead being turned into a > > write chunk target. That is not acceptable! > > The buffer is being used as both. Proper function depends on the > order of RDMA Writes and Receives on the client. > > rpcrdma_encode_write_list() registers up to an extra 3 bytes in > rq_rcv_buf.tail as part of the Write chunk. The R_keys for the > segments in the Write chunk are then sent to the server as part > of the RPC Call. Just clarifying, nothing in the code limits the registration of upto 3bytes. It allocates/registers the value of the tail.iov_len which typically much larger than 4bytes (40+bytes). > As part of Replying, the server RDMA Writes data into the chunk, > and possibly also RDMA Writes padding. It then does an RDMA Send > containing the RPC Reply. > > The Send data always lands in the Receive buffer _after_ the Write > data. The Receive completion guarantees that previous RDMA Writes > are complete. Receive handling invalidates and unmaps the memory, > and then it is made available to the RPC client. > > > > It means that we now are limited to creating COMPOUNDs where there are > > no more operations following the READ op because if we do so, we end up > > with a situation where the RDMA behaviour breaks. > > I haven't heard reports of a problem like this. I think what might be referred to here is that. *If* NFS READ compound also had a VERIFY added after it (which might be interesting to check validity). The way xdr encoding would happen is that the tail would have non-empty bytes for the VERIFY (not just the padding). In RDMA the code would be registering a write chunk, then it look at the non-empty tail and allocate/register all the bytes (which are VERIFY) into the write chunk (basically unused bytes hanging in the write chunk). I think the actual VERIFY call bytes would go into the RDMA Send call buffer together with the READ header. The code might also then create a reply chunk for the VERIFY reply (if the code estimates the reply is larger than the inline). > However, if there is a problem, it would be simple to create a > persistently-registered memory region that is not part of any RPC > buffer that can be used to catch unused Write chunk XDR padding. When I think of XDR padding, I'm thinking of a number of bytes less than 4. Perhaps I'm confused in my understanding. Tail.iov_len is never a value less than 4. Tail.iov_len can contain bytes after an opaque element for which a read or write chunk was used (eg READ+VERIFY or WRITE+GETATTR). Thus when RDMA looks at tail.iov_len and allocates that much memory, that allocation does not represent just XDR padding. Since RDMA can't distinguish between padding+operation vs padding, can this even be solved? > >>> This means that the RDMA and TCP cases should end up doing the same > >>> thing for the case of the Solaris server: the padding is written > >>> into > >>> the page buffer. There is nothing written to the tail in either > >>> case. > >> > >> "Always provide" can guarantee that the NFS client makes aligned > >> requests for buffered I/O, but what about NFS direct I/O from user > >> space? The NIC will place the data payload in the application To clarify, is direct I/O (with an application that uses unaligned buffers) only a problem for a (non-modern) Solaris server that insists on writing XDR padding into the write chunk? > >> buffer, but there's no guarantee that the NFS READ request will be > >> aligned or that the buffer will be able to sink the extra padding > >> bytes. > >> > >> We would definitely consider it an error if an unaligned RDMA Read > >> leaked the link-layer's 4-byte padding into a sink buffer. > >> > >> So, "Always provide" is nice for the in-kernel NFS client, but I > >> don't believe it allows the way xprtrdma behaves to be changed. > >> > > > > If you're doing an unaligned READ from user space then you are already > > in a situation where you're doing something that is incompatible with > > block device requirements. > > If there really are any applications that contain O_DIRECT code > > specifically for use with NFS, then we can artificially force the > > buffers to be aligned by reducing the size of the buffer to align to a > > 4 byte boundary. NFS supports returning short reads. > > Or xprtrdma can use the scheme I describe above. I think that > would be simpler and would avoid layering violations. > > That would also possibly address the Nvidia problem, since a > pre-registered MR that handles Write padding would always be a > separate RDMA segment. If we have separate segment(s) that don't mix page data with NFS allocated pages for whatever, that would indeed address the Nvidia problem. > Again, I doubt this is necessary to fix any operational problem > with _supported_ use cases, but let me know if you'd like me to > make this change. > > > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c | 15 --------------- > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 15 deletions(-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c > >>>>>> b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c > >>>>>> index c335c1361564..2c4146bcf2a8 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c > >>>>>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c > >>>>>> @@ -255,21 +255,6 @@ rpcrdma_convert_iovs(struct rpcrdma_xprt > >>>>>> *r_xprt, struct xdr_buf *xdrbuf, > >>>>>> page_base = 0; > >>>>>> } > >>>>>> > >>>>>> - if (type == rpcrdma_readch) > >>>>>> - goto out; > >>>>>> - > >>>>>> - /* When encoding a Write chunk, some servers need to > >>>>>> see an > >>>>>> - * extra segment for non-XDR-aligned Write chunks. The > >>>>>> upper > >>>>>> - * layer provides space in the tail iovec that may be > >>>>>> used > >>>>>> - * for this purpose. > >>>>>> - */ > >>>>>> - if (type == rpcrdma_writech && r_xprt->rx_ep- > >>>>>>> re_implicit_roundup) > >>>>>> - goto out; > >>>>>> - > >>>>>> - if (xdrbuf->tail[0].iov_len) > >>>>> > >>>>> Instead of checking for a tail, we could check > >>>>> > >>>>> if (xdr_pad_size(xdrbuf->page_len)) > >>>>> > >>>>> and provide some tail space in that case. > >>>> > >>>> I don't believe this is any different than what we have now. If > >>>> the > >>>> page size is non-4byte aligned then, we would still allocate size > >>>> for > >>>> the padding which "SHOULD NOT" be there. But yes it is allowed to > >>>> be > >>>> there. > >>>> > >>>> The problem, as you know from our offline discussion, is > >>>> allocating > >>>> the tail page and including it in the write chunk for the Nvidia > >>>> environment where Nvidia doesn't support use of data (user) pages > >>>> and > >>>> nfs kernel allocated pages in the same segment. > >>>> > >>>> Alternatively, my ask is then to change rpcrdma_convert_iovs() to > >>>> return 2 segs instead of one: one for the pages and another for > >>>> the > >>>> tail. > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> - rpcrdma_convert_kvec(&xdrbuf->tail[0], seg, > >>>>>> &n); > >>>>>> - > >>>>>> -out: > >>>>>> if (unlikely(n > RPCRDMA_MAX_SEGS)) > >>>>>> return -EIO; > >>>>>> return n; > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> 2.27.0 > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> Chuck Lever > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Trond Myklebust > >>> Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace > >>> trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com > >> > >> -- > >> Chuck Lever > >> > >> > >> > > > > -- > > Trond Myklebust > > Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace > > trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com > > -- > Chuck Lever > > >
On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:33 AM Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > On Aug 30, 2021, at 4:37 PM, Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: > > > >> On Aug 30, 2021, at 2:18 PM, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 18:02 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Aug 30, 2021, at 1:34 PM, Trond Myklebust > >>>> <trondmy@hammerspace.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, 2021-08-30 at 13:24 -0400, Olga Kornievskaia wrote: > >>>>> On Mon, Aug 30, 2021 at 1:04 PM Chuck Lever III > >>>>> <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Olga- > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Aug 30, 2021, at 12:53 PM, Olga Kornievskaia > >>>>>>> <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> From: Olga Kornievskaia <kolga@netapp.com> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Given the patch "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC > >>>>>>> read > >>>>>>> layers", > >>>>>>> RPC over RDMA doesn't need to look at the tail page and add > >>>>>>> that > >>>>>>> space > >>>>>>> to the write chunk. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For the RFC 8166 compliant server, it must not write an XDR > >>>>>>> padding > >>>>>>> into the write chunk (even if space was provided). > >>>>>>> Historically > >>>>>>> (before RFC 8166) Solaris RDMA server has been requiring the > >>>>>>> client > >>>>>>> to provide space for the XDR padding and thus this client > >>>>>>> code > >>>>>>> has > >>>>>>> existed. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't understand this change. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So, the upper layer doesn't provide XDR padding any more. That > >>>>>> doesn't > >>>>>> mean Solaris servers still aren't going to want to write into > >>>>>> it. > >>>>>> The > >>>>>> client still has to provide this padding from somewhere. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> This suggests that "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC > >>>>>> read > >>>>>> layers" breaks our interop with Solaris servers. Does it? > >>>>> > >>>>> No, I don't believe "Always provide aligned buffers to the RPC > >>>>> read > >>>>> layers" breaks the interoperability. THIS patch would break the > >>>>> interop. > >>>>> > >>>>> If we are not willing to break the interoperability and support > >>>>> only > >>>>> servers that comply with RFC 8166, this patch is not needed. > >>>> > >>>> Why? The intention of the first patch is to ensure that we do not > >>>> have > >>>> buffers that are not word aligned. If Solaris wants to write > >>>> padding > >>>> after the end of the file, then there is space in the page buffer > >>>> for > >>>> it to do so. There should be no need for an extra tail in which to > >>>> write the padding. > >>> > >>> The RPC/RDMA protocol is designed for hardware-offloaded direct data > >>> placement. That means the padding, which isn't data, must be directed > >>> to another buffer. > >>> > >>> This is a problem with RPC/RDMA v1 implementations. RFC 5666 was > >>> ambiguous, so there are implementations that write XDR padding into > >>> Write chunks. This is why RFC 8166 says SHOULD NOT instead of MUST > >>> NOT. > >>> > >>> I believe rpcrdma-version-two makes it a requirement not to use XDR > >>> padding in either Read or Write data payload chunks. > >>> > >>> > >> Correct, but in order to satisfy the needs of the Solaris server, > >> you've hijacked the tail for use as a data buffer. AFAICS it is not > >> being used as a SEND buffer target, but is instead being turned into a > >> write chunk target. That is not acceptable! > > > > The buffer is being used as both. Proper function depends on the > > order of RDMA Writes and Receives on the client. > > I've refreshed my memory. The above statement oversimplifies > a bit. > > - The memory pointed to by rqst->rq_buffer is persistently > registered to allow RDMA Send from it. It can also be > registered on the fly for use in Read chunks. > > - The memory pointed to by rqst->rq_rbuffer is NOT > persistently registered and is never used for RDMA Send > or Receive. It can be registered on the fly for use in a > Write or Reply chunk. This is when the tail portion of > rq_rcv_buf might be used to receive a pad. > > - A third set of persistently registered buffers is used > ONLY to catch RDMA Receive completions. > > When a Receive completes, the reply handler decides how to > construct the received RPC message. If there was a Reply > chunk, it leaves rq_rcv_buf pointing to rq_rbuffer, as that's > where the server wrote the Reply chunk. If there wasn't a > Reply chunk, the handler points rq_rcv_buf to the RDMA > Receive buffer. > > The only case where there might be overlap is when the client > has provisioned both a Write chunk and a Reply chunk. In that > case, yes, I can see that there might be an opportunity for > the server to RDMA Write the Write chunk's pad and the Reply > chunk into the same client memory buffer. However: > > - Most servers don't write a pad. Modern Solaris servers > behave "correctly" in this regard, I'm now told. Linux > never writes the pad, and I'm told OnTAP also does not. > > - Server implementations I'm aware of Write the Write chunk > first and then the Reply chunk. The Reply chunk would > overwrite the pad. > > - The client hardly ever uses Write + Reply. It's most > often one or the other. > > So again, there is little to zero chance there is an existing > operational issue here. But see below. > > > > rpcrdma_encode_write_list() registers up to an extra 3 bytes in > > rq_rcv_buf.tail as part of the Write chunk. The R_keys for the > > segments in the Write chunk are then sent to the server as part > > of the RPC Call. > > > > As part of Replying, the server RDMA Writes data into the chunk, > > and possibly also RDMA Writes padding. It then does an RDMA Send > > containing the RPC Reply. > > > > The Send data always lands in the Receive buffer _after_ the Write > > data. The Receive completion guarantees that previous RDMA Writes > > are complete. Receive handling invalidates and unmaps the memory, > > and then it is made available to the RPC client. > > > > > >> It means that we now are limited to creating COMPOUNDs where there are > >> no more operations following the READ op because if we do so, we end up > >> with a situation where the RDMA behaviour breaks. > > > > I haven't heard reports of a problem like this. > > > > However, if there is a problem, it would be simple to create a > > persistently-registered memory region that is not part of any RPC > > buffer that can be used to catch unused Write chunk XDR padding. > > > > > >>>> This means that the RDMA and TCP cases should end up doing the same > >>>> thing for the case of the Solaris server: the padding is written > >>>> into > >>>> the page buffer. There is nothing written to the tail in either > >>>> case. > >>> > >>> "Always provide" can guarantee that the NFS client makes aligned > >>> requests for buffered I/O, but what about NFS direct I/O from user > >>> space? The NIC will place the data payload in the application > >>> buffer, but there's no guarantee that the NFS READ request will be > >>> aligned or that the buffer will be able to sink the extra padding > >>> bytes. > >>> > >>> We would definitely consider it an error if an unaligned RDMA Read > >>> leaked the link-layer's 4-byte padding into a sink buffer. > >>> > >>> So, "Always provide" is nice for the in-kernel NFS client, but I > >>> don't believe it allows the way xprtrdma behaves to be changed. > >>> > >> > >> If you're doing an unaligned READ from user space then you are already > >> in a situation where you're doing something that is incompatible with > >> block device requirements. > >> If there really are any applications that contain O_DIRECT code > >> specifically for use with NFS, then we can artificially force the > >> buffers to be aligned by reducing the size of the buffer to align to a > >> 4 byte boundary. NFS supports returning short reads. > > > > Or xprtrdma can use the scheme I describe above. I think that > > would be simpler and would avoid layering violations. > > > > That would also possibly address the Nvidia problem, since a > > pre-registered MR that handles Write padding would always be a > > separate RDMA segment. > > > > Again, I doubt this is necessary to fix any operational problem > > with _supported_ use cases, but let me know if you'd like me to > > make this change. > > Since RFC 8666 says "SHOULD NOT", the spec mandates that the client > has to expect there might be a server that will RDMA Write the XDR > pad, so the Linux client really should always provide one. Having > a persistently registered spot to use for that means we have a > potential no-cost mechanism for providing that extra segment. The > whole "pad optimization" thing was because the pad segment is > currently registered on the fly, so it has a per-I/O cost. I just can't reconcile in my head the logic that rfc 8666 "SHOULD NOT" allocate and rfc 8166 that says server "MUST NOT" write the XDR padding, to mean that client should allocate memory. How can we assess that there are any old Solaris server out there for which we are keeping this around? Are we expected to keep this forever? Sorry the answers are probably not what I want to hear and I'm just more expressing frustration. > So I'm leaning toward implementing this simple solution, at least > as proof-of-concept. > > > -- > Chuck Lever > > >
> On Aug 31, 2021, at 11:54 AM, Olga Kornievskaia <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> wrote: > >> However, if there is a problem, it would be simple to create a >> persistently-registered memory region that is not part of any RPC >> buffer that can be used to catch unused Write chunk XDR padding. > > When I think of XDR padding, I'm thinking of a number of bytes less > than 4. Perhaps I'm confused in my understanding. Tail.iov_len is > never a value less than 4. Tail.iov_len can contain bytes after an > opaque element for which a read or write chunk was used (eg > READ+VERIFY or WRITE+GETATTR). Thus when RDMA looks at tail.iov_len > and allocates that much memory, that allocation does not represent > just XDR padding. Since RDMA can't distinguish between > padding+operation vs padding, can this even be solved? Yes, I think it can be solved. xprtrdma was relying on the upper layers to tell it how big the XDR pad was. Instead, it can either provide a 4-byte pad segment unconditionally, or it can look at the value of in the rq_rcv_buf::page_len. The reason for all the current cleverness in there is because adding the pad segment has a cost. If we make it no-cost, it can be added unconditionally, and all the cleverness can be tossed out. -- Chuck Lever
> On Aug 31, 2021, at 11:58 AM, Olga Kornievskaia <olga.kornievskaia@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 10:33 AM Chuck Lever III <chuck.lever@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> Since RFC 8666 says "SHOULD NOT", the spec mandates that the client This should say "RFC 8166." >> has to expect there might be a server that will RDMA Write the XDR >> pad, so the Linux client really should always provide one. Having >> a persistently registered spot to use for that means we have a >> potential no-cost mechanism for providing that extra segment. The >> whole "pad optimization" thing was because the pad segment is >> currently registered on the fly, so it has a per-I/O cost. > > I just can't reconcile in my head the logic that rfc 8666 "SHOULD NOT" > allocate and rfc 8166 that says server "MUST NOT" write the XDR > padding, to mean that client should allocate memory. 3.4.6.2. Write Chunk Roundup When provisioning a Write chunk for a variable-length result data item, the Requester SHOULD NOT include additional space for XDR roundup padding. A Responder MUST NOT write XDR roundup padding into a Write chunk, even if the Requester made space available for it. Therefore, when returning a single variable-length result data item, a returned Write chunk’s total length MUST be the same as the encoded length of the result data item. RFC 8166-compliant servers MUST NOT write padding. pre-8166 servers sometimes do write it. I would like the Linux client to interoperate with both because not interoperating with pre-8166 servers would be a regression. > How can we assess that there are any old Solaris server out there for > which we are keeping this around? Are we expected to keep this > forever? Sorry the answers are probably not what I want to hear and > I'm just more expressing frustration. There's no way to know how many pre-RFC 8166 servers there are out there. But that's now moot, since we have a solution that makes it basically free to support them. -- Chuck Lever
diff --git a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c index c335c1361564..2c4146bcf2a8 100644 --- a/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c +++ b/net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/rpc_rdma.c @@ -255,21 +255,6 @@ rpcrdma_convert_iovs(struct rpcrdma_xprt *r_xprt, struct xdr_buf *xdrbuf, page_base = 0; } - if (type == rpcrdma_readch) - goto out; - - /* When encoding a Write chunk, some servers need to see an - * extra segment for non-XDR-aligned Write chunks. The upper - * layer provides space in the tail iovec that may be used - * for this purpose. - */ - if (type == rpcrdma_writech && r_xprt->rx_ep->re_implicit_roundup) - goto out; - - if (xdrbuf->tail[0].iov_len) - rpcrdma_convert_kvec(&xdrbuf->tail[0], seg, &n); - -out: if (unlikely(n > RPCRDMA_MAX_SEGS)) return -EIO; return n;