[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170801110241.GE6742@infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2017 04:02:41 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] dax, ext4: Synchronous page faults
On Fri, Jul 28, 2017 at 11:38:21AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Well, you are right I can make the implementation work with struct file
> flag as well - let's call it O_DAXDSYNC. However there are filesystem
> operations where you may need to answer question: Is there any fd with
> O_DAXDSYNC open against this inode (for operations that change file offset
> -> block mapping)? And in that case inode flag is straightforward while
> file flag is a bit awkward (you need to implement counter of fd's with that
> flag in the inode).
We can still keep and inode flag as the internal implementation
detail. As mentioned earlier the right flag to control behavior
of a mapping is an mmap flag. And the initial naive implementation
would simply mark the inode as sync once the first MAP_SYNC open happens
on it. We could then move to more precise tracking if/when needed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists