[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55CC2BDA.3080906@plexistor.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 08:32:10 +0300
From: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com>
To: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
CC: "Wilcox, Matthew R" <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>,
"linda.knippers@...com" <linda.knippers@...com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: regression introduced by "block: Add support for DAX reads/writes
to block devices"
On 08/13/2015 12:11 AM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com> writes:
>
>> On 08/07/2015 11:41 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> <>
>>>
>>>> We need to cope with the case where the end of a partition isn't on a
>>>> page boundary though.
>>>
>>> Well, that's usually done by falling back to buffered I/O. I gave that
>>> a try and panicked the box. :) I'll keep looking into it, but probably
>>> won't have another patch until next week.
>>>
>>
>> lets slow down for a sec, please.
>>
>> We have all established that an unaligned partition start is BAD and not supported?
>
> No. Unaligned partitions on RAID arrays or 512e devices are bad because
> they result in suboptimal performance. They are most certainly still
> supported, though.
>
What ?
I meant for dax on pmem or brd. I meant that we *do not* support dax access
on an unaligned partition start. (None dax is perfectly supported)
We did it this way because of the direct_access API that returns a pfn
with is PAGE_SIZE. We could introduce a pfn+offset but we thought it is
not worth it, and that dax should be page aligned for code simplicity
Cheers
Boaz
> -Jeff
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists