[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <x49vb5yvrzv.fsf@segfault.boston.devel.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 2016 15:58:44 -0500
From: Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-kernel\@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-nvdimm\@lists.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...1.01.org>,
XFS Developers <xfs@....sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] dax: move writeback calls into the filesystems
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com> writes:
> I agree the mount option needs to die, and I fully grok the reasoning.
> What I'm concerned with is that a system using fully-DAX-aware
> applications is forced to incur the overhead of maintaining *sync
> semantics, periodic sync(2) in particular, even if it is not relying
> on those semantics.
>
> However, like I said in my other mail, we can solve that with
> alternate interfaces to persistent memory if that becomes an issue and
> not require that "disable *sync" capability to come through DAX.
What do you envision these alternate interfaces looking like?
-Jeff
Powered by blists - more mailing lists