From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757400AbcH2M54 (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 08:57:56 -0400 Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:47688 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756406AbcH2M5y (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Aug 2016 08:57:54 -0400 Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2016 08:57:41 -0400 From: "Theodore Ts'o" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Ross Zwisler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org, Matthew Wilcox , Dave Chinner , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andreas Dilger , Alexander Viro , Jan Kara , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes Message-ID: <20160829125741.cdnbb2uaditcmnw2@thunk.org> Mail-Followup-To: Theodore Ts'o , Christoph Hellwig , Ross Zwisler , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org, Matthew Wilcox , Dave Chinner , linux-mm@kvack.org, Andreas Dilger , Alexander Viro , Jan Kara , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org References: <20160823220419.11717-1-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <20160823220419.11717-3-ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com> <20160825075728.GA11235@infradead.org> <20160826212934.GA11265@linux.intel.com> <20160829074116.GA16491@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160829074116.GA16491@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2-neo (2016-07-23) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: tytso@thunk.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on imap.thunk.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 12:41:16AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > We're going to move forward killing buffer_heads in XFS. I think ext4 > would dramatically benefit from this a well, as would ext2 (although I > think all that DAX work in ext2 is a horrible idea to start with). It's been on my todo list. The only reason why I haven't done it yet is because I knew you were working on a solution, and I didn't want to do things one way for buffered I/O, and a different way for Direct I/O, and disentangling the DIO code and the different assumptions of how different file systems interact with the DIO code is a *mess*. It may have gotten better more recently, but a few years ago I took a look at it and backed slowly away..... - Ted