On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 12:58 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> I agree the mount option needs to die, and I fully grok the reasoning. >> What I'm concerned with is that a system using fully-DAX-aware >> applications is forced to incur the overhead of maintaining *sync >> semantics, periodic sync(2) in particular, even if it is not relying >> on those semantics. >> >> However, like I said in my other mail, we can solve that with >> alternate interfaces to persistent memory if that becomes an issue and >> not require that "disable *sync" capability to come through DAX. > > What do you envision these alternate interfaces looking like? Well, plan-A was making DAX be explicit opt-in for applications, I haven't thought too much about plan-B. I expect it to be driven by real performance numbers and application use cases once the *sync compat work completes. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
