[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151014153138.GA12470@linux.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2015 09:31:38 -0600
From: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org,
Matthew Wilcox <matthew.r.wilcox@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] ext2: Add locking for DAX faults
On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:51:19AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 13-10-15 16:25:37, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > Add locking to ensure that DAX faults are isolated from ext2 operations
> > that modify the data blocks allocation for an inode. This is intended to
> > be analogous to the work being done in XFS by Dave Chinner:
> >
> > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg90260.html
> >
> > Compared with XFS the ext2 case is greatly simplified by the fact that ext2
> > already allocates and zeros new blocks before they are returned as part of
> > ext2_get_block(), so DAX doesn't need to worry about getting unmapped or
> > unwritten buffer heads.
> >
> > This means that the only work we need to do in ext2 is to isolate the DAX
> > faults from inode block allocation changes. I believe this just means that
> > we need to isolate the DAX faults from truncate operations.
> >
> > The newly introduced dax_sem is intended to replicate the protection
> > offered by i_mmaplock in XFS. In addition to truncate the i_mmaplock also
> > protects XFS operations like hole punching, fallocate down, extent
> > manipulation IOCTLS like xfs_ioc_space() and extent swapping. Truncate is
> > the only one of these operations supported by ext2.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
>
> The patch looks good to me. Feel free to add:
>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
>
> Or I can push the patch through my tree as it seems to be independent of
> any other changes, am I right?
>
> Honza
Yep, it is independent of other patches. It'd be great if you pushed it up
through your tree, thanks!
--
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