On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 3:28 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The crux of the problem, in my opinion, is that we're asking for an "I >> know what I'm doing" flag, and I expect that's an impossible statement >> for a filesystem to trust generically. > > The file system already trusts that. If an application doesn't use > fsync properly, guess what, it will break. This line of reasoning > doesn't make any sense to me. No, I'm worried about the case where an app specifies MAP_PMEM_AWARE uses fsync correctly, and fails to flush cpu cache. >> If you can get MAP_PMEM_AWARE in, great, but I'm more and more of the >> opinion that the "I know what I'm doing" interface should be something >> separate from today's trusted filesystems. > > Just so I understand you, MAP_PMEM_AWARE isn't the "I know what I'm > doing" interface, right? It is the "I know what I'm doing" interface, MAP_PMEM_AWARE asserts "I know when to flush the cpu relative to an fsync()". -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>