From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39822 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932885AbbDIJXO convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Apr 2015 05:23:14 -0400 From: David Howells In-Reply-To: <20150409174916.5a2efef5@notabene.brown> References: <20150409174916.5a2efef5@notabene.brown> To: NeilBrown Cc: dhowells@redhat.com, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-cachefs@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] fscache/cachefiles versus btrfs MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Thu, 09 Apr 2015 10:23:08 +0100 Message-ID: <29536.1428571388@warthog.procyon.org.uk> Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: NeilBrown wrote: > Is there a better way? Could a better way be created? Maybe > SEEK_DATA_RELIABLE ?? fiemap() maybe? > Also, if you do try to use fscache on btrfs with 3.19, then nothing gets > cached (as expected) and with a heavy load you can lose a race and get an > asserting fail in fscache_enqueue_operation Do you have the patches here applied? http://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/dhowells/linux-fs.git/log/?h=fscache-fixes David