From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] xfs: truncate vs page fault IO exclusion
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 18:42:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150112174258.GN4468@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150108122448.GA18034@infradead.org>
On Thu 08-01-15 04:24:48, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > This patchset passes xfstests and various benchmarks and stress
> > workloads, so the real question is now:
> >
> > What have I missed?
> >
> > Comments, thoughts, flames?
>
> Why is this done in XFS and not in generic code?
I was also thinking about this. In the end I decided not to propose this
since the new rw-lock would grow struct inode and is actually necessary
only for filesystems implementing hole punching AFAICS. And that isn't
supported by that many filesystems. So fs private implementation which
isn't that complicated looked like a reasonable solution to me...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-01-12 17:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-07 22:25 [RFC PATCH 0/6] xfs: truncate vs page fault IO exclusion Dave Chinner
2015-01-07 22:25 ` [RFC PATCH 1/6] xfs: introduce mmap/truncate lock Dave Chinner
2015-01-22 13:09 ` Brian Foster
2015-01-22 21:30 ` Dave Chinner
2015-01-07 22:25 ` [RFC PATCH 2/6] xfs: use i_mmaplock on read faults Dave Chinner
2015-01-07 22:25 ` [RFC PATCH 3/6] xfs: use i_mmaplock on write faults Dave Chinner
2015-01-07 22:25 ` [RFC PATCH 4/6] xfs: take i_mmap_lock on extent manipulation operations Dave Chinner
2015-01-22 13:23 ` Brian Foster
2015-01-22 21:32 ` Dave Chinner
2015-01-07 22:25 ` [RFC PATCH 5/6] xfs: xfs_setattr_size no longer races with page faults Dave Chinner
2015-01-07 22:25 ` [RFC PATCH 6/6] xfs: lock out page faults from extent swap operations Dave Chinner
2015-01-22 13:41 ` Brian Foster
2015-01-08 11:34 ` [RFC PATCH 0/6] xfs: truncate vs page fault IO exclusion Jan Kara
2015-01-08 12:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2015-01-08 21:45 ` Dave Chinner
2015-01-12 17:42 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2015-01-21 22:26 ` Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20150112174258.GN4468@quack.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).