[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171029215233.GF3666@dastard>
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 08:52:33 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: "mhocko@...e.com" <mhocko@...e.com>, "jack@...e.cz" <jack@...e.cz>,
"benh@...nel.crashing.org" <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"heiko.carstens@...ibm.com" <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
"bfields@...ldses.org" <bfields@...ldses.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"paulus@...ba.org" <paulus@...ba.org>,
"Hefty, Sean" <sean.hefty@...el.com>,
"jlayton@...chiereds.net" <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
"mawilcox@...rosoft.com" <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
"linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"mpe@...erman.id.au" <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
"dledford@...hat.com" <dledford@...hat.com>,
"hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
"jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com" <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
"hal.rosenstock@...il.com" <hal.rosenstock@...il.com>,
"schwidefsky@...ibm.com" <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com" <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
"darrick.wong@...cle.com" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/13] dax: fix dma vs truncate and remove 'page-less'
support
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 01:42:16PM +0200, Dan Williams wrote:
> [replying from my phone, please forgive formatting]
>
> On Friday, October 27, 2017, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > Here are the two primary patches in
> > > the series, do you think the extent-busy approach would be cleaner?
> >
> > The XFS_DAXDMA....
> >
> > $DEITY that patch is so ugly I can't even bring myself to type it.
>
>
> Right, and so is the problem it's trying to solve. So where do you want to
> go from here?
>
> I could go back to the FL_ALLOCATED approach, but use page idle callbacks
> instead of polling for the lease end notification. Or do we want to try
> busy extents? My concern with busy extents is that it requires more per-fs
> code.
I don't care if it takes more per-fs code to solve the problem -
dumping butt-ugly, nasty locking crap into filesystems that
filesystem developers are completely unable to test is about the
worst possible solution you can come up with.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists