On Wed 23-01-19 19:27:12, Javier González wrote:
>
> > On 9 Jan 2019, at 16.30, Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Exiting write-hints are exposed to user-mode. There is a possiblity
> > of conflict if kernel happens to use those. This patch introduces four
> > write-hints for exclusive kernel-mode use.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > include/linux/fs.h | 5 +++++
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> > index 811c777..e8548eb 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> > @@ -291,6 +291,11 @@ enum rw_hint {
> > WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM = RWH_WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM,
> > WRITE_LIFE_LONG = RWH_WRITE_LIFE_LONG,
> > WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME = RWH_WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME,
> > +/* below ones are meant for in-kernel use */
> > + KERN_WRITE_LIFE_SHORT,
> > + KERN_WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM,
> > + KERN_WRITE_LIFE_LONG,
> > + KERN_WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME
> > };
> >
>
> I think Jens and Dave meant kernel hints to go top down. This would also
> give space for supporting more hints / streams from both ends for user
> and kernel.
Yes, that was the idea however if I understand it right, the write hints do
not really have to be consistent boot-to-boot since they aren't stored
persistently by the disk, are they? If that's the case, it doesn't really
matter which numbers we pick.
One thing I don't quite like is the naming of KERN_WRITE_LIFE_SHORT etc.. It
is upto filesystem to assign meanings to the write hints. So I think it is
enough to provide something like KERN_WRITE_HINT_MIN which is the first
hint available to the kernel and then the number of hints available to the
kernel.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
