Re: [PATCH v3 14/15] dax: dirty extent notification

[Dan Williams]

On Tue, Nov 3, 2015 at 1:18 PM, Ross Zwisler
<ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2015 at 08:56:24PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 5:16 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Sun, Nov 01, 2015 at 11:30:58PM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> <>
>> > Yes, that's a basic feature of Ross's patches. Hence I think this
>> > special case DAX<->bdev interface is the wrong direction to be
>> > taking.
>>
>> So here's my problem with the "track dirty mappings" in the core
>> mm/vfs approach, it's harder to unwind and delete when it turns out no
>> application actually needs it, or the platform gives us an O(1) flush
>> method that is independent of dirty pte tracking.
>
> I don't think that we'll ever be able to "unwind and delete" the dirty page
> tracking.  Even if *some* platform gives us an 0(1) flush method independent
> of PTE tracking, that will be an optimized path that will need to live along
> side the path that we'll need to keep for other architectures (like all the
> ones that exist today).

Other architectures are in worse shape when we start talking about
virtually tagged caches.  If an architecture can't support DAX
efficiently I don't know why we would jump through hoops in the core
to allow it to use DAX.  In the interim to make forward progress we
have a safe workaround in the driver, and when the reports come in
about fsync taking too much time the response is "switch from fsync to
NVML" or "turn off DAX (ideally at the inode)".  What's broken about
those mitigation options?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/