[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200118091105.GA9407@dread.disaster.area>
Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2020 20:11:05 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 01/12] fs/stat: Define DAX statx attribute
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 10:05:00PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 9:39 PM Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com> wrote:
> [..]
> > > attempts to minimize software cache effects for both I/O and
> > > memory mappings of this file. It requires a file system which
> > > has been configured to support DAX.
> > >
> > > DAX generally assumes all accesses are via cpu load / store
> > > instructions which can minimize overhead for small accesses, but
> > > may adversely affect cpu utilization for large transfers.
> > >
> > > File I/O is done directly to/from user-space buffers and memory
> > > mapped I/O may be performed with direct memory mappings that
> > > bypass kernel page cache.
> > >
> > > While the DAX property tends to result in data being transferred
> > > synchronously, it does not give the same guarantees of
> > > synchronous I/O where data and the necessary metadata are
> > > transferred together.
> >
> > (I'm frankly not sure that synchronous I/O actually guarantees that the
> > metadata has hit stable storage...)
>
> Oh? That text was motivated by the open(2) man page description of O_SYNC.
Ugh. "synchronous I/O" means two different things, depending on
context. In the AIO context, it means "process context waits for operation
completion direct", but in the O_SYNC context, it means "we guarantee
data integrity for each I/O submitted".
Indeed, O_SYNC AIO is a thing. i.e. we can do an "async sync
write" to guarantee data integrity without directly waiting for
it. Now try describing that only using the words "synchronous
write" to describe both behaviours. :)
IOWs, if you are talking about data integrity, you need to
explicitly say "O_SYNC semantics", not "synchronous write", because
"synchronous write" is totally ambiguous without the O_SYNC context
of the open(2) man page...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists