xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

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

To: "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] dax: use sb_issue_zerout instead of calling dax_clear_sectors
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 12:37:14 -0700
Cc: "linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <linux-block@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx" <linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx>, "viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "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>, "jack@xxxxxxx" <jack@xxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=z0Ms0gCgscjwqSPLnLMQY7Kz25oxG922XLyjvVHio/U=; b=w+A5V/7RyCk7rz9zKFIOi8GKuULeIxiIa4gGOYR1Y4WDCsENtgx0Ze1p0V627CmjUt MoTq/rvf6Z0RaL2kjkkticVzNs8+3zgqxjAvDZWmMj6RBxp/I9Fadgq6k6Vc+wX+LV8y YYd/a24EOABwUH4XtRMQfC1+lSMYW+C4/KAnqKPGdcX0ghitI1dJNrCS8aQiGgwou1+N aKNLL4QHk7axmOkxSDmtgCxrEpxTkl3UpUkWEPcDG3djGpvfpRWkE9FItXKZ74A5Ss8/ pBvEYCrT9bLxmYucIhEAbogoVspXH3K/ljQ0umDyrgBcn7ep6uEdCyn5/yKMi3Kil+NL WygA==
In-reply-to: <1459277829.6412.3.camel@xxxxxxxxx>
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>
On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Verma, Vishal L
<vishal.l.verma@xxxxxxxxx> 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?  I'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... :)

I think we're ok because clear_pmem() will always happen on PAGE_SIZE,
or HPAGE_SIZE boundaries.

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