On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 01:42:16PM +0200, Dan Williams wrote: > [replying from my phone, please forgive formatting] > > On Friday, October 27, 2017, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Here are the two primary patches in > > > the series, do you think the extent-busy approach would be cleaner? > > > > The XFS_DAXDMA.... > > > > $DEITY that patch is so ugly I can't even bring myself to type it. > > > Right, and so is the problem it's trying to solve. So where do you want to > go from here? > > I could go back to the FL_ALLOCATED approach, but use page idle callbacks > instead of polling for the lease end notification. Or do we want to try > busy extents? My concern with busy extents is that it requires more per-fs > code. I don't care if it takes more per-fs code to solve the problem - dumping butt-ugly, nasty locking crap into filesystems that filesystem developers are completely unable to test is about the worst possible solution you can come up with. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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>
