On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 10:15:10AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> Well, I don't know if platforms that support HMAT + PMEM are widely available,
> but we have all the details in the ACPI spec, so we could begin to code it up
> and things will "just work" when platforms arrive.
Then again currently a
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:40:01PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:30:57AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > I agree that Christoph's idea about having the system intelligently adjust
> > to
> > use DAX based on performance information it gathers about the underlying
> >
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:30:57AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> I agree that Christoph's idea about having the system intelligently adjust to
> use DAX based on performance information it gathers about the underlying
> persistent memory (probably via the HMAT on x86_64 systems) is interesting,
> bu
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 12:48:30PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> For the most part I'm in favor of Christoph's suggestion to let the
> kernel decide on its own, and I don't see the point in encoding details
> of the storage medium access strategy on the disk, particularly since
> filesystems are
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:30:57AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 04:37:43PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 09:09:57PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > Well, quite frankly, I never wanted the mount option for XFS. It was
> > > supposed to be for in
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 09:38:12AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 05:13:58PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > Before support for the per-inode DAX flag was disabled the XFS the code had
> > an issue where the user couldn't reliably tell whether or not DAX was being
> > used to s
On 9/26/17 6:09 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:35:48AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>> On Tue 26-09-17 09:38:12, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 05:13:58PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
Before support for the per-inode DAX flag was disabled the XFS the code had
>
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 04:37:43PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 09:09:57PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Well, quite frankly, I never wanted the mount option for XFS. It was
> > supposed to be for initial testing only, then we'd /always/ use the
> > the inode flags. Fo
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 09:09:57PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Well, quite frankly, I never wanted the mount option for XFS. It was
> supposed to be for initial testing only, then we'd /always/ use the
> the inode flags. For a filesystem to default to using DAX, we
> set the DAX flag on the root i
On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 11:35:48AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 26-09-17 09:38:12, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 05:13:58PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > > Before support for the per-inode DAX flag was disabled the XFS the code
> > > had
> > > an issue where the user couldn't
On Tue 26-09-17 09:38:12, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 05:13:58PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> > Before support for the per-inode DAX flag was disabled the XFS the code had
> > an issue where the user couldn't reliably tell whether or not DAX was being
> > used to service page faul
On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 05:13:58PM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> Before support for the per-inode DAX flag was disabled the XFS the code had
> an issue where the user couldn't reliably tell whether or not DAX was being
> used to service page faults and I/O when the DAX mount option was used. In
> t
Before support for the per-inode DAX flag was disabled the XFS the code had
an issue where the user couldn't reliably tell whether or not DAX was being
used to service page faults and I/O when the DAX mount option was used. In
this case each inode within the mounted filesystem started with S_DAX s
13 matches
Mail list logo
