From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Boaz Harrosh Subject: Re: Should implementations of ->direct_access be allowed to sleep? Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 12:13:17 +0300 Message-ID: <5517C22D.8040003@plexistor.com> References: <1411677218-29146-1-git-send-email-matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com> <1411677218-29146-22-git-send-email-matthew.r.wilcox@intel.com> <20150324185046.GA4994@whiteoak.sf.office.twttr.net> <20150326170918.GO4003@linux.intel.com> <20150326193224.GA28129@dastard> <5517B18A.3050305@plexistor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Matthew Wilcox , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, msharbiani@twopensource.com To: Boaz Harrosh , Dave Chinner , Matthew Wilcox Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5517B18A.3050305@plexistor.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 03/29/2015 11:02 AM, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > On 03/26/2015 09:32 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: <> > I think that ->direct_access should not be any different then > any other block-device access, ie allow to sleep. > BTW: Matthew you yourself have said that after a page-load of memcpy a user should call sched otherwise bad things will happen to the system you even commented so on one of my patches when you thought I was allowing a single memcpy bigger than a page. So if the user *must* call sched after a call to ->direct_access that is a "sleep" No? Thanks Boaz -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org