xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] xfs: truncate vs page fault IO exclusion

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] xfs: truncate vs page fault IO exclusion
From: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:42:58 +0100
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150108122448.GA18034@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1420669543-8093-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150108122448.GA18034@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu 08-01-15 04:24:48, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > This patchset passes xfstests and various benchmarks and stress
> > workloads, so the real question is now:
> > 
> >     What have I missed?
> > 
> > Comments, thoughts, flames?
> 
> Why is this done in XFS and not in generic code?
  I was also thinking about this. In the end I decided not to propose this
since the new rw-lock would grow struct inode and is actually necessary
only for filesystems implementing hole punching AFAICS. And that isn't
supported by that many filesystems. So fs private implementation which
isn't that complicated looked like a reasonable solution to me...

                                                                Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>