On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 8:28 PM, Martin K. Petersen <martin.petersen@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The next step was trying to map these hints into what was available in > xadvise(), NFS 4.2 and the recent T10/T13 efforts. That wasn't trivial > and there really isn't a 1:1 mapping that works. So I went to T10 and > tried to nudge things in the same direction as NFS 4.2. Mainly because > that's closer to what we already have in xadvise(). In case you still have hair left to pull wrangling these multiple specifications, Matthew reminds me that NVME also has cache advice at the transport layer. > Jens> I think we've needed a proper API for passing in appropriate hints > Jens> on a per-io basis for a LONG time. > > Yup. I understand the desire to have per-io / per-inode xadvise()-style hints, but I don't see why not also include a per-pid capability? Per-pid was not "icky" for flashcache [1]. It let's you flag processes that should not pollute the cache, as well "cache warming" processes pre-loading sub-ranges of files that is awkward to do with a per-inode hint. Per-pid also allows hinting on behalf of other otherwise cache-unaware processes. > Jens> That is the big challenge. We've tried (and failed) in the past to > Jens> define a set of hints that make sense. It'd be a shame to add > Jens> something that's specific to a given transport/technology. > > Absolutely! In this RFC we end up punting the ultimate kernel-to-transport hint translation to userspace. The kernel has a default interpretation, but it seems it will almost always be inadequate trying to account for per-device-quirks and platform performance policies. [1]: https://github.com/facebook/flashcache/blob/master/doc/flashcache-doc.txt#L139 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
