On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 10:09:07AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> writes: > > Hi, Jan, > > Thanks for looking into this! > > > There are couple of open questions with this implementation: > > > > 1) Is it worth the hassle? > > 2) Is S_SYNC good flag to use or should we use a new inode flag? > > 3) VM_FAULT_RO and especially passing of resulting 'pfn' from > > dax_iomap_fault() through filesystem fault handler to dax_pfn_mkwrite() in > > vmf->orig_pte is a bit of a hack. So far I'm not sure how to refactor > > things to make this cleaner. > > 4) How does an application discover that it is safe to flush from > userspace? I think that we would be best off with a new flag available via lsattr(1)/chattr(1). This would have the following advantages: 1) We could only set the flag if the inode supported DAX (either via the mount option or via the individual DAX flag). This would give NVML et al. one central way to detect whether it was safe to flush from userspace because the FS supported synchronous faults. 2) Defining a new flag prevents any confusion about whether the kernel version you have supports sync faults. Otherwise NVML would have to do something like look at the trio of (kernel version, S_SYNC flag, mount/inode option for DAX) which is complex and of course breaks for OS kernel versions. 3) Defining the flag in a generic way via lsattr/chattr opens the door for the same API and flag to be used by other filesystems in the future. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
