[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170621021903.GM17542@dastard>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2017 12:19:03 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
"Rudoff, Andy" <andy.rudoff@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm, fs: daxfile, an interface for
byte-addressable updates to pmem
On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 06:24:03PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 09:53:46AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 09:17:36AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > An immutable-extent DAX-file and a reflink-capable DAX-file are not
> > > mutually exclusive,
> >
> > Actually, they are mutually exclusive: when the immutable extent DAX
> > inode is breaking the extent sharing done during the reflink
> > operation, the copy-on-write operation requires allocating and
> > freeing extents on the inode that has immutable extents. Which, if
> > the inode really has immutable extents, cannot be done.
> >
> > That said, if the extent sharing is broken on the other side of the
> > reflink (i.e. the non-immutable inode created by the reflink) then
> > the extent map of the inode with immutable extents will remain
> > unchanged. i.e. there are two sides to this, and if you only see one
> > side you might come to the wrong conclusion.
> >
> > However, we cannot guarantee that no writes occur to the inode with
> > immutable extent maps (especially as the whole point is to allow
> > userspace writes and commits without the kernel being involved), so
> > extent sharing on immutable extent maps cannot be allowed...
>
> Just to play devil's advocate...
>
> /If/ you have rmap and /if/ you discover that there's only one
> IOMAP_IMMUTABLE file owning this same block and /if/ you're willing to
> relocate every other mapping on the whole filesystem, /then/ you could
> /in theory/ support shared daxfiles.
I figured that nobody apart from experienced filesystem developers
would understand the complexities of rmap and refcounts and how they
could be abused to do this. I also assumed that that people like you
would understand this is possible but completely impractical....
> However, that's so many on-disk metadata lookups to shove into a
> pagefault handler that I don't think anyone in XFSland would entertain
> such an ugly fantasy. You'd be making a lot of metadata requests, and
> you'd have to lock the rmapbt while grabbing inodes, which is insane.
Exactly. But while I understand this, consider the amount of assumed
filesystem and XFS knowledge in that one simple paragraph. Most
non-experts would have stopped *understanding* at "/If/ you have
rmap" and go away with the wrong ideas in their heads. Hence I now
tend to omit mentioning "possible but impractical" things in mixed
expertise discussions....
> Much easier to have a per-inode flag that says "the block map of this
> file does not change" and put up with the restricted semantics.
In a nutshell.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists