Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> The big issue we have right now is that we haven't made the DAX/pmem >> infrastructure work correctly and reliably for general use. Hence >> adding new APIs to workaround cases where we haven't yet provided >> correct behaviour, let alone optimised for performance is, quite >> frankly, a clear case premature optimisation. > > Again, I see the two things as separate issues. You need both. > Implementing MAP_SYNC doesn't mean we don't have to solve the bigger > issue of making existing applications work safely. I want to add one more thing to this discussion, just for the sake of clarity. When I talk about existing applications and pmem, I mean applications that already know how to detect and recover from torn sectors. Any application that assumes hardware does not tear sectors should be run on a file system layered on top of the btt. I think this underlying assumption may have been overlooked in this discussion, and could very well be a source of confusion. Cheers, Jeff -- 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>