[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190211180654.GB24692@ziepe.ca>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 11:06:54 -0700
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Discuss least bad options for resolving
longterm-GUP usage by RDMA
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 09:22:58AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> I honestly don't like the idea that random subsystems can pin down
> file blocks as a side effect of gup on the result of mmap. Recall that
> it's not just RDMA that wants this guarantee. It seems safer to have
> the file be in an explicit block-allocation-immutable-mode so that the
> fallocate man page can describe this error case. Otherwise how would
> you describe the scenarios under which FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE fails?
I rather liked CL's version of this - ftruncate/etc is simply racing
with a parallel pwrite - and it doesn't fail.
But it also doesnt' trucate/create a hole. Another thread wrote to it
right away and the 'hole' was essentially instantly reallocated. This
is an inherent, pre-existing, race in the ftrucate/etc APIs.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists