[lkml]   [2017]   [Jan]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/13] dax, pmem: move cpu cache maintenance to libnvdimm
On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Christoph Hellwig <> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 04:28:52PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> Of course, there may not be a backing device either!
> s/backing device/block device/ ? If so fully agreed. I like the dax_ops
> scheme, but we should go all the way and detangle it from the block
> device. I already brought up this issue with the fallback to direct I/O
> on I/O error series.
>> I see two possible routes here:
>> 1. Add a new address_space_operation:
>> const struct dax_operations *(*get_dax_ops)(struct address_space *);
>> 2. Add two of the dax_operations to address_space_operations:
>> size_t (*copy_from_iter)(struct address_space *, void *, size_t, struct iov_iter *);
>> void (*flush)(struct address_space *, void *, size_t);
>> (we won't need ->direct_access as an address_space op because that'll be handled a different way in the brave new world that supports non-bdev-based filesystems)
> And both of them are wrong. The write_begin/write_end mistake
> notwithstanding address_space ops are operations the VM can call without
> knowing things like fs locking contexts. The above on the other hand
> are device operations provided by the low-level driver, similar to
> block_device operations. So what we need is to have a way to mount
> a dax device as a file system, similar to how we support that for block
> or MTD devices and can then call methods on it. For now this will
> be a bit complicated because all current DAX-aware file systems also
> still need block device for the metadata path, so we can't just say
> you mount either a DAX or block device. But I think we should aim
> for mounting a DAX device as the primary use case, and then deal
> with block device emulation as a generic DAX layer thing, similarly
> how we implement (bad in the rw case) block devices on top of MTD.

So are you saying we need a way to go from a block_device inode to a
dax_device inode and then look up the dax_operations from there?

A filesystem, if it so chooses, could mount on top of the dax_device
inode directly?

I did add a dax_superblock for the device-dax character device
representation I could refactor that so the block_device presentation
of a namespace and a character device presentation are just different
layers on top of the base-level dax inode.

...or am I not tracking what you are suggesting?

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-01-22 18:30    [W:0.076 / U:7.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site