On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 02:50:37PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Tue 25-07-17 14:15:22, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 11:35:08AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Tue 25-07-17 10:01:58, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 01:14:00AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > > > I guess it's up to filesystem if it wants to reuse the same spot to > > > > > write > > > > > data or not. I think your assumptions works for ext4 and xfs. I > > > > > wouldn't > > > > > be that sure for btrfs or other filesystems with CoW support. > > > > > > > > Or XFS with reflinks for that matter. Which currently can't be > > > > combined with DAX, but I had a somewhat working version a few month > > > > ago. > > > > > > But in cases like COW when the block mapping changes, the process > > > must run unmap_mapping_range() before installing the new PTE so that all > > > processes mapping this file offset actually refault and see the new > > > mapping. So this would go through pte_none() case. Am I missing something? > > > > Yes, for DAX COW mappings we'd probably need something like this, unlike > > the pagecache COW handling for which only the underlying block change, > > but not the page. > > Right. So again nothing where the WARN_ON should trigger.
Yes. I was confused on how COW is handled. Acked-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shute...@linux.intel.com> -- Kirill A. Shutemov _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
