| 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> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: extremely slow file creation/deletion after xfs ran full, Carsten Aulbert |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [PATCH 09/18] nfsd: implement pNFS operations, Tom Haynes |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] xfs: truncate vs page fault IO exclusion, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] xfs: truncate vs page fault IO exclusion, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |