xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 4/5] dax: use sb_issue_zerout instead of calling dax_clear_se

To: "jack@xxxxxxx" <jack@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] dax: use sb_issue_zerout instead of calling dax_clear_sectors
From: "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 19:17:52 +0000
Accept-language: en-US
Cc: "linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx" <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, "viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Williams, Dan J" <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>, "axboe@xxxxxx" <axboe@xxxxxx>, "akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-nvdimm@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-nvdimm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <ross.zwisler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Wilcox, Matthew R" <matthew.r.wilcox@xxxxxxxxx>, "david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20160330074926.GC12776@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1458861450-17705-1-git-send-email-vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx> <1458861450-17705-5-git-send-email-vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx> <CAPcyv4iKK=1Nhz4QqEkhc4gum+UvUS4a=+Sza2zSa1Kyrth41w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1458939796.5501.8.camel@xxxxxxxxx> <CAPcyv4jWqVcav7dQPh7WHpqB6QDrCezO5jbd9QW9xH3zsU4C1w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1459195288.15523.3.camel@xxxxxxxxx> <CAPcyv4jFwh679arTNoUzLZpJCSoR+KhMdEmwqddCU1RWOrjD=Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1459277829.6412.3.camel@xxxxxxxxx> <20160330074926.GC12776@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thread-index: AQHRhiNvKoQhiC/aYEiTGtqXM3Dgv59q9p4AgAAl9ACAAATbgIAEoN8AgAA7dACAAUTogIAA18YAgAPk+oA=
Thread-topic: [PATCH 4/5] dax: use sb_issue_zerout instead of calling dax_clear_sectors
On Wed, 2016-03-30 at 09:49 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 29-03-16 18:57:16, Verma, Vishal L wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 16:34 -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > 
> > <>
> > 
> > > 
> > > Seems kind of sad to fail the fault due to a bad block when we
> > > were
> > > going to zero it anyway, right?ÂÂI'm not seeing a compelling
> > > reason to
> > > keep any zeroing in fs/dax.c.
> > Agreed - but how do we do this? clear_pmem needs to be able to clear
> > an
> > arbitrary number of bytes, but to go through the driver, we'd need
> > to
> > send down a bio? If only the driver had an rw_bytes like interface
> > that
> > could be used by anyone... :)
> Actually, my patches for page fault locking remove zeroing from
> dax_insert_mapping() and __dax_pmd_fault() - the zeroing now happens
> from
> the filesystem only and the zeroing in those two functions is just a
> dead
> code...

That should make things easier! Do you have a tree I could merge in to
get this? (WIP is ok as we know that my series will depend on yours..)
or, if you can distill out that patch on a 4.6-rc1 base, I could carry
it in my series too (your v2's 3/10 doesn't apply on 4.6-rc1..)

Thanks,
        -Vishal
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>