On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 08:15:32AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > Agreed - makig O_DIRECT less direct than not having it is plain stupid, > > and I somehow missed this initially. > > Of course I disagree because like Dave argues in the msync case we > should do the correct thing first and make it fast later, but also > like Dave this arguing in circles is getting tiresome. We should do the right thing first, and make it fast later. But this proposal is not getting it right - it still does not handle errors for the fast path, but magically makes it work for direct I/O by in general using a less optional path for O_DIRECT. It's getting the worst of all choices. As far as I can tell the only sensible option is to: - always try dax-like I/O first - have a custom get_user_pages + rw_bytes fallback handles bad blocks when hitting EIO And then we need to sort out the concurrent write synchronization. Again there I think we absolutely have to obey Posix for the !O_DIRECT case and can avoid it for O_DIRECT, similar to the existing non-DAX semantics. If we want any special additional semantics we _will_ need a special O_DAX flag. -- 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>