[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BY2PR21MB00367799FE7B7E8302A99260CB730@BY2PR21MB0036.namprd21.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Jan 2017 15:43:09 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
CC: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Brian Boylston <brian.boylston@....com>,
"Tony Luck" <tony.luck@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>,
Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>,
"dm-devel@...hat.com" <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Linus Torvalds" <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH 00/13] dax, pmem: move cpu cache maintenance to libnvdimm
From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:hch@....de]
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 04:28:52PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > Of course, there may not be a backing device either!
>
> s/backing device/block device/ ? If so fully agreed. I like the dax_ops
> scheme, but we should go all the way and detangle it from the block
> device. I already brought up this issue with the fallback to direct I/O
> on I/O error series.
In the case of a network filesystem being used to communicate with a different VM on the same physical machine, there is no backing device, just a network protocol.
> And both of them are wrong. The write_begin/write_end mistake
> notwithstanding address_space ops are operations the VM can call without
> knowing things like fs locking contexts. The above on the other hand
> are device operations provided by the low-level driver, similar to
> block_device operations. So what we need is to have a way to mount
> a dax device as a file system, similar to how we support that for block
> or MTD devices and can then call methods on it. For now this will
> be a bit complicated because all current DAX-aware file systems also
> still need block device for the metadata path, so we can't just say
> you mount either a DAX or block device. But I think we should aim
> for mounting a DAX device as the primary use case, and then deal
> with block device emulation as a generic DAX layer thing, similarly
> how we implement (bad in the rw case) block devices on top of MTD.
I'm not terribly enthusiastic about creating a fake block device to sit on top of a network filesystem, but I suppose we could go that way if we had to.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists