On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 1:11 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:16:11PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> Silently turn on DAX if HMAT says its ok?
>
> Yes, absolutely. I want my system to do the right thing by default,
> and if HMAT says bypassing the page cache is a clear adv
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:16:11PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> Silently turn on DAX if HMAT says its ok?
Yes, absolutely. I want my system to do the right thing by default,
and if HMAT says bypassing the page cache is a clear advatange it
should be the default.
> I think we would instead
> want
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:11:08AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> Until HMAT came along we had no data in the kernel how to pick a sane
>> default, but we could now very easily make a "if pmem performance <
>> dram, disable dax by default
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:11:08AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> Until HMAT came along we had no data in the kernel how to pick a sane
> default, but we could now very easily make a "if pmem performance <
> dram, disable dax by default" policy in the kernel.
I'd rather do it the other way around -
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 10:01 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:53:07AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> It allows for opt-in for applications, or administrators of those
>> applications, that know the type of access.
>
> That's BS. We need to provide the best possible way to
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 09:53:07AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> It allows for opt-in for applications, or administrators of those
> applications, that know the type of access.
That's BS. We need to provide the best possible way to access the
media to an application. And whether that's DAX or the
On Wed, Jul 26, 2017 at 12:26 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:15:10PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
>> We're in the process of walking back and potentially deprecating the
>> use of the dax mount option for xfs and ext4 since dax can have
>> negative performance implications
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 05:15:10PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> We're in the process of walking back and potentially deprecating the
> use of the dax mount option for xfs and ext4 since dax can have
> negative performance implications if page cache memory happens to be
> faster than pmem. It should
_inode_flags()
Thanks,
From: Jaegeuk Kim [jaeg...@kernel.org]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2017 10:16
To: Dan Williams
Cc: sunqiuyang; Linux Kernel Mailing List; linux-fsdevel;
linux-f2fs-de...@lists.sourceforge.net; linux-nvd...@lists.01.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/1] f2fs: dax: impl
Hi Dan,
On 07/25, Dan Williams wrote:
> [ adding linux-nvdimm ]
>
> On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:10 AM, sunqiuyang wrote:
> > From: Qiuyang Sun
> >
> > This patch implements Direct Access (DAX) in F2FS, including:
> > - a mount option to choose whether to enable DAX or not
>
> We're in the proce
[ adding linux-nvdimm ]
On Thu, Jul 20, 2017 at 5:10 AM, sunqiuyang wrote:
> From: Qiuyang Sun
>
> This patch implements Direct Access (DAX) in F2FS, including:
> - a mount option to choose whether to enable DAX or not
We're in the process of walking back and potentially deprecating the
use of
Hi Jaegeuk,
Below is the error message I got from this testcase:
---
write (Invalid argument) len 1024 dio [dax to nondax | both nodax]
read (Bad address) len [4096 | 16777216 | 67108864] dio dax to nondax
---
The write error is expected, as F2FS does not support unaligned direct
IO (1024 B).
Hi Qiuyang,
This fails xfstests/generic/413.
Thanks,
On 07/20, sunqiuyang wrote:
> From: Qiuyang Sun
>
> This patch implements Direct Access (DAX) in F2FS, including:
> - a mount option to choose whether to enable DAX or not
> - read/write and mmap of regular files in the DAX way
> - zero-o
13 matches
Mail list logo