Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1395213

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

Show all headers | View raw

On Thu, May 5, 2016 at 8:22 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 08:15:32AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> > Agreed - makig O_DIRECT less direct than not having it is plain stupid,
>> > and I somehow missed this initially.
>>
>> Of course I disagree because like Dave argues in the msync case we
>> should do the correct thing first and make it fast later, but also
>> like Dave this arguing in circles is getting tiresome.
>
> We should do the right thing first, and make it fast later.  But this
> proposal is not getting it right - it still does not handle errors
> for the fast path, but magically makes it work for direct I/O by
> in general using a less optional path for O_DIRECT.  It's getting the
> worst of all choices.
>
> As far as I can tell the only sensible option is to:
>
>  - always try dax-like I/O first
>  - have a custom get_user_pages + rw_bytes fallback handles bad blocks
>    when hitting EIO

If you're on board with more special fallbacks for dax-capable block
devices that indeed opens up the thinking.  The O_DIRECT approach was
meant to keep the error clearing model close to the traditional block
device case, but yes that does constrain the implementation in
sub-optimal ways.

However, we still have the alignment problem in the rw_bytes case, how
do we communicate to the application that only writes with a certain
size/alignment will clear errors?  That forced alignment assumption
was the other appeal of O_DIRECT.  Perhaps we can at least start with
hole punching and block reallocation as the error clearing method
while we think more about the write-to-clear case?

> And then we need to sort out the concurrent write synchronization.
> Again there I think we absolutely have to obey Posix for the !O_DIRECT
> case and can avoid it for O_DIRECT, similar to the existing non-DAX
> semantics.  If we want any special additional semantics we _will_ need
> a special O_DAX flag.

Ok, makes sense.

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

[PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com> - 2016-04-28 23:20 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> - 2016-05-02 17:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io Vishal Verma <vishal@kernel.org> - 2016-05-02 17:50 +0200
  Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io Boaz Harrosh <boaz@plexistor.com> - 2016-05-02 17:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io Vishal Verma <vishal@kernel.org> - 2016-05-02 18:00 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io Boaz Harrosh <boaz@plexistor.com> - 2016-05-02 18:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@intel.com> - 2016-05-02 21:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2016-05-02 18:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io Boaz Harrosh <boaz@plexistor.com> - 2016-05-02 18:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2016-05-02 19:00 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io Boaz Harrosh <boaz@plexistor.com> - 2016-05-02 19:50 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2016-05-02 20:20 +0200
              Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io Boaz Harrosh <boaz@plexistor.com> - 2016-05-02 20:40 +0200
                Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2016-05-02 20:50 +0200
                Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io Boaz Harrosh <boaz@plexistor.com> - 2016-05-02 21:30 +0200
    Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> - 2016-05-05 16:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2016-05-05 17:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> - 2016-05-05 17:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com> - 2016-05-05 18:30 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@intel.com> - 2016-05-05 23:50 +0200
            Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io "hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org> - 2016-05-08 11:10 +0200
              Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@intel.com> - 2016-05-08 20:50 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@intel.com> - 2016-05-05 23:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io "Verma, Vishal L" <vishal.l.verma@intel.com> - 2016-05-05 23:40 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v4 5/7] fs: prioritize and separate direct_io from dax_io "hch@infradead.org" <hch@infradead.org> - 2016-05-08 11:10 +0200

csiph-web