xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io

To: "hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "boaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <boaz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io
From: "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 May 2016 21:39:14 +0000
Accept-language: en-US
Cc: "linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-nvdimm@xxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-nvdimm@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx" <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, "viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "axboe@xxxxxx" <axboe@xxxxxx>, "linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "jack@xxxxxxx" <jack@xxxxxxx>, "matthew@xxxxxx" <matthew@xxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20160505142433.GA4557@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1461878218-3844-1-git-send-email-vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx> <1461878218-3844-6-git-send-email-vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx> <5727753F.6090104@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20160505142433.GA4557@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: AQHRoZNfS9ZF3cQEEUydwj8b8xF2vZ+mRHyAgAShZYCAAHlmgA==
Thread-topic: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io
On Thu, 2016-05-05 at 07:24 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, May 02, 2016 at 06:41:51PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > All IO in a dax filesystem used to go through dax_do_io, which
> > > cannot
> > > handle media errors, and thus cannot provide a recovery path that
> > > can
> > > send a write through the driver to clear errors.
> > > 
> > > Add a new iocb flag for DAX, and set it only for DAX mounts. In
> > > the IO
> > > path for DAX filesystems, use the same direct_IO path for both DAX
> > > and
> > > direct_io iocbs, but use the flags to identify when we are in
> > > O_DIRECT
> > > mode vs non O_DIRECT with DAX, and for O_DIRECT, use the
> > > conventional
> > > direct_IO path instead of DAX.
> > > 
> > Really? What are your thinking here?
> > 
> > What about all the current users of O_DIRECT, you have just made
> > them
> > 4 times slower and "less concurrent*" then "buffred io" users. Since
> > direct_IO path will queue an IO request and all.
> > (And if it is not so slow then why do we need dax_do_io at all?
> > [Rhetorical])
> > 
> > I hate it that you overload the semantics of a known and expected
> > O_DIRECT flag, for special pmem quirks. This is an incompatible
> > and unrelated overload of the semantics of O_DIRECT.
> Agreed - makig O_DIRECT less direct than not having it is plain
> stupid,
> and I somehow missed this initially.

How is it any 'less direct'? All it does now is follow the blockdev
O_DIRECT path. There still isn't any page cache involved..

> 
> This whole DAX story turns into a major nightmare, and I fear all our
> hodge podge tweaks to the semantics aren't helping it.
> 
> It seems like we simply need an explicit O_DAX for the read/write
> bypass if can't sort out the semantics (error, writer synchronization)
> just as we need a special flag for MMAP..
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>