[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171001081726.GD11895@lst.de>
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2017 10:17:26 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] xfs: protect S_DAX transitions in XFS read path
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:11:55AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> I think we'll always need an explicit override available, but yes we
> need to think about what the override looks like in the context of a
> kernel that is able to automatically pick the right I/O policy
> relative to the media type. A potential mixed policy for reads vs
> writes makes sense. Where would this finer grained I/O policy
> selection go other than more inode flags?
fadvise?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists