Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 04:04:12PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > When DAX calls ext2_get_block() and the file offset points to a hole we > currently don't set bh_result->b_size. When we re-enable PMD faults DAX > will need bh_result->b_size to tell it the size of the hole so it can > decide

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 04:04:12PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > When DAX calls ext2_get_block() and the file offset points to a hole we > currently don't set bh_result->b_size. When we re-enable PMD faults DAX > will need bh_result->b_size to tell it the size of the hole so it can > decide

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 05:47:41AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 07:52:53AM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > DAX code over to using iomap requires converting all of ext2 away from > > buffer_head; are you saying he's wrong? > > Not sure if he's really saying that, but

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Sun, Sep 11, 2016 at 05:47:41AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 07:52:53AM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > DAX code over to using iomap requires converting all of ext2 away from > > buffer_head; are you saying he's wrong? > > Not sure if he's really saying that, but

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 07:52:53AM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > DAX code over to using iomap requires converting all of ext2 away from > buffer_head; are you saying he's wrong? Not sure if he's really saying that, but it's wrong for sure. Just to prove that I came up with a working ext2 iomap

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 07:52:53AM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > DAX code over to using iomap requires converting all of ext2 away from > buffer_head; are you saying he's wrong? Not sure if he's really saying that, but it's wrong for sure. Just to prove that I came up with a working ext2 iomap

RE: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

From: Theodore Ts'o [mailto:ty...@mit.edu] > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:31:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > I've mentioned this before, but I'd like to repeat it. With all the > > work reqwuired in the file system I would prefer to drop DAX support > > in ext2 (and if people really cry

RE: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

From: Theodore Ts'o [mailto:ty...@mit.edu] > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:31:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > I've mentioned this before, but I'd like to repeat it. With all the > > work reqwuired in the file system I would prefer to drop DAX support > > in ext2 (and if people really cry

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:31:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I've mentioned this before, but I'd like to repeat it. With all the > work reqwuired in the file system I would prefer to drop DAX support > in ext2 (and if people really cry for it reinstate the trivial old xip > support). Why

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 12:31:51AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I've mentioned this before, but I'd like to repeat it. With all the > work reqwuired in the file system I would prefer to drop DAX support > in ext2 (and if people really cry for it reinstate the trivial old xip > support). Why

RE: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:h...@infradead.org] > Either way we need to get rid of buffer_heads, and another aop that is > entirely > caller specific is unaceptable. I finally figured out what you actually meant by this. You mean that instead of having an aop->populate_pfn, you want to

RE: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:h...@infradead.org] > Either way we need to get rid of buffer_heads, and another aop that is > entirely > caller specific is unaceptable. I finally figured out what you actually meant by this. You mean that instead of having an aop->populate_pfn, you want to

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > From: Dan Williams [mailto:dan.j.willi...@intel.com] >> /me grumbles about top-posting... > > Let's see if this does any better .. there's lots of new features, but I > don't see a 'wrap lines at 80 columns' option.

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 1:15 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > From: Dan Williams [mailto:dan.j.willi...@intel.com] >> /me grumbles about top-posting... > > Let's see if this does any better .. there's lots of new features, but I > don't see a 'wrap lines at 80 columns' option. Unfortunately. Much

RE: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

From: Dan Williams [mailto:dan.j.willi...@intel.com] > /me grumbles about top-posting... Let's see if this does any better .. there's lots of new features, but I don't see a 'wrap lines at 80 columns' option. Unfortunately. > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Matthew Wilcox

RE: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

From: Dan Williams [mailto:dan.j.willi...@intel.com] > /me grumbles about top-posting... Let's see if this does any better .. there's lots of new features, but I don't see a 'wrap lines at 80 columns' option. Unfortunately. > On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Matthew Wilcox > wrote: > > I

RE: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:h...@infradead.org] > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 07:33:18AM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > caller specific is unaceptable. That being said your idea doesn't > > > sounds unreasonable, but will require a bit more work and has no > > > real short-term need. > > > >

RE: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:h...@infradead.org] > On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 07:33:18AM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > caller specific is unaceptable. That being said your idea doesn't > > > sounds unreasonable, but will require a bit more work and has no > > > real short-term need. > > > >

RE: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:h...@infradead.org] > On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:34:43PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > I agree with you that continuing to touch ext2 is not a good idea, but > > I'm not yet convinced that now is the time to go do dax-2.0 when we > > haven't finished shipping

RE: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:h...@infradead.org] > On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:34:43PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > > I agree with you that continuing to touch ext2 is not a good idea, but > > I'm not yet convinced that now is the time to go do dax-2.0 when we > > haven't finished shipping

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 07:33:18AM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > caller specific is unaceptable. That being said your idea doesn't sounds > > unreasonable, but will require a bit more work and has no real short-term > > need. > > So your proposal is to remove buffer_heads from ext2? No, the

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 07:33:18AM +, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > caller specific is unaceptable. That being said your idea doesn't sounds > > unreasonable, but will require a bit more work and has no real short-term > > need. > > So your proposal is to remove buffer_heads from ext2? No, the

RE: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:h...@infradead.org] > The mail is basically unparsable (hint: you can use a sane mailer even with > exchange servers :)). That rather depends on how the Exchange servers are configured ... this isn't the appropriate place to discuss IT issues though. > Either way

RE: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

From: Christoph Hellwig [mailto:h...@infradead.org] > The mail is basically unparsable (hint: you can use a sane mailer even with > exchange servers :)). That rather depends on how the Exchange servers are configured ... this isn't the appropriate place to discuss IT issues though. > Either way

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:34:43PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > I agree with you that continuing to touch ext2 is not a good idea, but > I'm not yet convinced that now is the time to go do dax-2.0 when we > haven't finished shipping dax-1.0. I've mentioned this before, but I'd like to repeat it.

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:34:43PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > I agree with you that continuing to touch ext2 is not a good idea, but > I'm not yet convinced that now is the time to go do dax-2.0 when we > haven't finished shipping dax-1.0. I've mentioned this before, but I'd like to repeat it.

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

The mail is basically unparsable (hint: you can use a sane mailer even with exchange servers :)). Either way we need to get rid of buffer_heads, and another aop that is entirely caller specific is unaceptable. That being said your idea doesn't sounds unreasonable, but will require a bit more

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

The mail is basically unparsable (hint: you can use a sane mailer even with exchange servers :)). Either way we need to get rid of buffer_heads, and another aop that is entirely caller specific is unaceptable. That being said your idea doesn't sounds unreasonable, but will require a bit more

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

/me grumbles about top-posting... On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > I feel like we're not only building on shifting sands, but we haven't decided > whether we're building a Pyramid or a Sphinx. > > I thought after Storage Summit, we had broad

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

/me grumbles about top-posting... On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 1:35 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > I feel like we're not only building on shifting sands, but we haven't decided > whether we're building a Pyramid or a Sphinx. > > I thought after Storage Summit, we had broad agreement that we were moving

RE: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

.com>; linux...@kvack.org; Andreas Dilger <adilger.ker...@dilger.ca>; Alexander Viro <v...@zeniv.linux.org.uk>; Jan Kara <j...@suse.com>; linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org; linux-e...@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes On Mon, Aug 2

RE: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

h Hellwig ; Ross Zwisler ; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Andrew Morton ; linux-nvd...@ml01.01.org; Matthew Wilcox ; Dave Chinner ; linux...@kvack.org; Andreas Dilger ; Alexander Viro ; Jan Kara ; linux-fsde...@vger.kernel.org; linux-e...@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:57:41AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > 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

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:57:41AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > 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

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:57:41AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > 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

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 08:57:41AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > 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

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

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

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

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

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 03:29:34PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > These changes don't remove the things in XFS needed by the old I/O and fault > paths (e.g. xfs_get_blocks_direct() is still there an unchanged). Is the > correct way forward to get buy-in from ext2/ext4 so that they also move to >

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 03:29:34PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > These changes don't remove the things in XFS needed by the old I/O and fault > paths (e.g. xfs_get_blocks_direct() is still there an unchanged). Is the > correct way forward to get buy-in from ext2/ext4 so that they also move to >

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 03:29:34PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:57:28AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Hi Ross, > > > > can you take at my (fully working, but not fully cleaned up) version > > of the iomap based DAX code here: > > > >

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 03:29:34PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote: > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:57:28AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Hi Ross, > > > > can you take at my (fully working, but not fully cleaned up) version > > of the iomap based DAX code here: > > > >

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:57:28AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi Ross, > > can you take at my (fully working, but not fully cleaned up) version > of the iomap based DAX code here: > > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/vfs.git/shortlog/refs/heads/iomap-dax > > By using iomap we don't

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:57:28AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi Ross, > > can you take at my (fully working, but not fully cleaned up) version > of the iomap based DAX code here: > > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/vfs.git/shortlog/refs/heads/iomap-dax > > By using iomap we don't

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:57:28AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi Ross, > > can you take at my (fully working, but not fully cleaned up) version > of the iomap based DAX code here: > > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/vfs.git/shortlog/refs/heads/iomap-dax > > By using iomap we don't

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 12:57:28AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Hi Ross, > > can you take at my (fully working, but not fully cleaned up) version > of the iomap based DAX code here: > > http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/vfs.git/shortlog/refs/heads/iomap-dax > > By using iomap we don't

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

Hi Ross, can you take at my (fully working, but not fully cleaned up) version of the iomap based DAX code here: http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/vfs.git/shortlog/refs/heads/iomap-dax By using iomap we don't even have the size hole problem and totally get out of the reverse-engineer what

Re: [PATCH v2 2/9] ext2: tell DAX the size of allocation holes

Hi Ross, can you take at my (fully working, but not fully cleaned up) version of the iomap based DAX code here: http://git.infradead.org/users/hch/vfs.git/shortlog/refs/heads/iomap-dax By using iomap we don't even have the size hole problem and totally get out of the reverse-engineer what