Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1169728
| From | Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH 14/15] libnvdimm: support read-only btt backing devices |
| Date | 2015-06-22 08:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pE3yF-4bg-17@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <pCvpn-8ib-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <pDKw1-29u-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <pDNtT-6kx-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <pDNWW-6So-17@gated-at.bofh.it> <pDPcm-nc-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 08:11:25AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > The labels only allow allocation of persistent media between pmem and > blk. For a given dimm you may access in either mode and the label > records the decision. We can have a btt on either the pmem or > blk-mode disk type, or partition thereof. Sounds like the spec should allow a btt type as well insteaad of requiring the OS to work around it, as that seems to be one of the few useful things to do with a run-time label. Either way, partitions are trivial things and we could add them to the nvdimm layer. > Yes, it's this hybrid thing that mostly fits into the existing block > device model save for two new block_device_operations > ->direct_access() and ->rw_bytes(). We then use property of a > block_device that allows it to be claimed for exclusive ownership by a > filesystem or another block_device to layer storage semantics on top > be it files+directories, raid, caching, or atomic sectors. NVDIMM > devices don't present the same complexity as MTD devices. The only > complexity they present is byte-address-ability, not erase-block-size, > wear-leveling, etc... I didn't say they show the same complexities, but the same layering. > Good to hear that we don't need BTT for XFS v5, can we make the > guarantee for all filesystems that may want to support DAX? I still > think stacking is a natural fit for this problem. I can't make any guarantees, especially not without verification. But if correctly implemented any filesystems that does out of place metadata writes (and that includes a traditional log) and uses checksum to ensure the integrity of these updates it should be fine. You'd still have the issue of sector atomicy of file I/O though. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 14/15] libnvdimm: support read-only btt backing devices Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2015-06-18 02:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH 14/15] libnvdimm: support read-only btt backing devices Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - 2015-06-21 12:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 14/15] libnvdimm: support read-only btt backing devices Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2015-06-21 17:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 14/15] libnvdimm: support read-only btt backing devices Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> - 2015-06-22 08:40 +0200
csiph-web