From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A52D7F4E for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 16:26:44 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 580758F8037 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:26:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id U4Z4J7EYVyop9jTW for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 14:26:42 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:26:39 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] xfs: truncate vs page fault IO exclusion Message-ID: <20150121222639.GJ16552@dastard> References: <1420669543-8093-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <20150108122448.GA18034@infradead.org> <20150112174258.GN4468@quack.suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150112174258.GN4468@quack.suse.cz> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Jan Kara Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 06:42:58PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > 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... Ok, so it seems that doing this in the filesystem itself as an initial solution is the way to move forward. Given that, this patchset has run through regression and stress testing for a couple of weeks without uncovering problems, so now I'm looking for reviews so I can commit it. Anyone? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs