linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH V2 01/12] fs/stat: Define DAX statx attribute

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 16 Jan 2020 10:04:21 -0800
From:   "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
To:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
Cc:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
        "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
        linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-xfs <linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org>,
        linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2 01/12] fs/stat: Define DAX statx attribute

On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 09:55:02AM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 09:39:35PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 02:38:21PM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:10:50PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 11:45 AM Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 09:38:34AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 12:37:15PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri 10-01-20 11:29:31, ira.weiny@...el.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > 
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > > 
> > > Sure, but for now I think referencing mmap for details on MAP_SYNC works.
> > > 
> > > I suspect that we may have some word smithing once I get this series in and we
> > > submit a change to the statx man page itself.  Can I move forward with the
> > > following for this patch?
> > > 
> > > <quote>
> > > STATX_ATTR_DAX
> > > 
> > >         The file is in the DAX (cpu direct access) state.  DAX state
> > 
> > Hmm, now that I see it written out, I <cough> kind of like "DAX mode"
> > better now. :/
> > 
> > "The file is in DAX (CPU direct access) mode.  DAX mode attempts..."
> 
> Sure...  now you tell me...  ;-)
> 
> Seriously, we could use mode here in the man page as this is less confusing to
> say "DAX mode".
> 
> But I think the code should still use 'state' because mode is just too
> overloaded.  You were not the only one who was thrown by my use of mode and I
> don't want that confusion when we look at this code 2 weeks from now...
> 
> https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/852og2/only_god_knows/
> 
> ;-)

Ok, let's leave it alone for now then.

I'm not even sure what 'DAX' stands for.  Direct Access to ...
Professor Xavier? 8-)

> > 
> > >         attempts to minimize software cache effects for both I/O and
> > >         memory mappings of this file.  It requires a file system which
> > >         has been configured to support DAX.
> > > 
> > >         DAX generally assumes all accesses are via cpu load / store
> > >         instructions which can minimize overhead for small accesses, but
> > >         may adversely affect cpu utilization for large transfers.
> > > 
> > >         File I/O is done directly to/from user-space buffers and memory
> > >         mapped I/O may be performed with direct memory mappings that
> > >         bypass kernel page cache.
> > > 
> > >         While the DAX property tends to result in data being transferred
> > >         synchronously, it does not give the same guarantees of
> > >         synchronous I/O where data and the necessary metadata are
> > >         transferred together.
> > 
> > (I'm frankly not sure that synchronous I/O actually guarantees that the
> > metadata has hit stable storage...)
> 
> I'll let you and Dan work this one out...  ;-)

Hehe.  I think the wording here is fine.

--D

> Ira
>