On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 21:28 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> This is what btrfs already does for O_DIRECT plus compressed, or
> other
> cases where people don't want their applications to break on top of
> new
> features that aren't quite compatible with it.
I do not know how much of direct IO we can
Chris Mason writes:
>> I do think we should at least document what file systems appear to be
>> doing. Here's a man page patch for open (generated with extra context
>> for easier reading). Let me know what you think.
>
> We shouldn't be ignoring it, but instead call it similar to O_DSYNC plus
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:00:58AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Dave Chinner writes:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 01:19:24PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> >> Brian Norris writes:
> >>
> >> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:13:25AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> >> >> Now, some user-space fails when
Dave Chinner writes:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 01:19:24PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
>> Brian Norris writes:
>>
>> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:13:25AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>> >> Now, some user-space fails when direct I/O is not supported.
>> >
>> > I think the whole argument rested on
On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 21:28 -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
This is what btrfs already does for O_DIRECT plus compressed, or
other
cases where people don't want their applications to break on top of
new
features that aren't quite compatible with it.
I do not know how much of direct IO we can do in
Chris Mason c...@fb.com writes:
I do think we should at least document what file systems appear to be
doing. Here's a man page patch for open (generated with extra context
for easier reading). Let me know what you think.
We shouldn't be ignoring it, but instead call it similar to O_DSYNC
Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 01:19:24PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Brian Norris computersforpe...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:13:25AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
Now, some user-space fails when direct I/O is not supported.
I think
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 10:00:58AM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 01:19:24PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Brian Norris computersforpe...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:13:25AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
Now,
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:46:11AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 01:19:24PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> > Brian Norris writes:
> >
> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:13:25AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > >> Now, some user-space fails when direct I/O is not supported.
> >
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 01:19:24PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
> Brian Norris writes:
>
> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:13:25AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> >> Now, some user-space fails when direct I/O is not supported.
> >
> > I think the whole argument rested on what it means when "some user
Brian Norris writes:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:13:25AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>> Now, some user-space fails when direct I/O is not supported.
>
> I think the whole argument rested on what it means when "some user space
> fails"; apparently that "user space" is just a test suite (which
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:13:25AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Now, some user-space fails when direct I/O is not supported.
I think the whole argument rested on what it means when "some user space
fails"; apparently that "user space" is just a test suite (which
can/should be fixed).
> We
Am 24.08.2015 um 11:34 schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
> On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 01:03 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:02:42AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>>> Back when we were writing UBIFS, we did not need direct IO, so we
>>> did
>>> not implement it. But yes, probably
On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 01:03 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:02:42AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > Back when we were writing UBIFS, we did not need direct IO, so we
> > did
> > not implement it. But yes, probably someone who cares could just
> > try
> >
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 03:17:10PM +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
> >Richard, you mention this was suggested by Dave, could you please pint
> >to the discussion, if possible?
>
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2015-August/060702.html
>
> That's in a discussion I want to introduce
On 08/24/2015 04:03 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:02:42AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
Back when we were writing UBIFS, we did not need direct IO, so we did
not implement it. But yes, probably someone who cares could just try
implementing this feature.
So I think
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:02:42AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Back when we were writing UBIFS, we did not need direct IO, so we did
> not implement it. But yes, probably someone who cares could just try
> implementing this feature.
So I think the answer here is to implement a real version
On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 00:53 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:13:25AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > 1. we are the only FS erroring out on O_DIRECT
> > 2. other file-systems not supporting direct IO just fake it
>
> There are lots of file systems not supporting
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:13:25AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> 1. we are the only FS erroring out on O_DIRECT
> 2. other file-systems not supporting direct IO just fake it
There are lots of file systems not supporting O_DIRECT, but ubifs might
be the most common one. Given that O_DIRECT
On 08/24/2015 03:17 PM, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
On 08/24/2015 03:18 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 15:34 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Basically, we need to see what is the "common practice" here, and
follow it.
On 08/24/2015 03:18 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 15:34 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Basically, we need to see what is the "common practice" here, and
follow it. This requires a small research. What would be the
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 15:34 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > > Basically, we need to see what is the "common practice" here, and
> > > follow it. This requires a small research. What would be the most
> > > popular Linux FS which
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 13:49 -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
> Pardon the innocent bystander's comment, but:
>
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 01:40:02PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > Am 20.08.2015 um 13:31 schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
> > > On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 11:00 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
> > >
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:13:25AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
Now, some user-space fails when direct I/O is not supported.
I think the whole argument rested on what it means when some user space
fails; apparently that user space is just a test suite (which
can/should be fixed).
We can
Brian Norris computersforpe...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:13:25AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
Now, some user-space fails when direct I/O is not supported.
I think the whole argument rested on what it means when some user space
fails; apparently that user space is just a
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:13:25AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
1. we are the only FS erroring out on O_DIRECT
2. other file-systems not supporting direct IO just fake it
There are lots of file systems not supporting O_DIRECT, but ubifs might
be the most common one. Given that O_DIRECT
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 03:17:10PM +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
Richard, you mention this was suggested by Dave, could you please pint
to the discussion, if possible?
http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-mtd/2015-August/060702.html
That's in a discussion I want to introduce ubifs
On 08/24/2015 04:03 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:02:42AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
Back when we were writing UBIFS, we did not need direct IO, so we did
not implement it. But yes, probably someone who cares could just try
implementing this feature.
So I think
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 15:34 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Basically, we need to see what is the common practice here, and
follow it. This requires a small research. What would be the most
popular Linux FS which does not
On 08/24/2015 03:18 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 15:34 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Basically, we need to see what is the common practice here, and
follow it. This requires a small research. What would be the
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:02:42AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
Back when we were writing UBIFS, we did not need direct IO, so we did
not implement it. But yes, probably someone who cares could just try
implementing this feature.
So I think the answer here is to implement a real version
On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 00:53 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:13:25AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
1. we are the only FS erroring out on O_DIRECT
2. other file-systems not supporting direct IO just fake it
There are lots of file systems not supporting O_DIRECT,
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 13:49 -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
Pardon the innocent bystander's comment, but:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 01:40:02PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 20.08.2015 um 13:31 schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 11:00 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
On
On 08/24/2015 03:17 PM, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
On 08/24/2015 03:18 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 15:34 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Basically, we need to see what is the common practice here, and
follow it. This
Am 24.08.2015 um 11:34 schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 01:03 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:02:42AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
Back when we were writing UBIFS, we did not need direct IO, so we
did
not implement it. But yes, probably someone who
On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 01:03 -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 11:02:42AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
Back when we were writing UBIFS, we did not need direct IO, so we
did
not implement it. But yes, probably someone who cares could just
try
implementing this
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 01:19:24PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Brian Norris computersforpe...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:13:25AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
Now, some user-space fails when direct I/O is not supported.
I think the whole argument rested on what it means
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 09:46:11AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 01:19:24PM -0400, Jeff Moyer wrote:
Brian Norris computersforpe...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:13:25AM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
Now, some user-space fails when direct I/O is not
Pardon the innocent bystander's comment, but:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 01:40:02PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 20.08.2015 um 13:31 schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
> > On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 11:00 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
> >> On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> >>> Currently
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > Basically, we need to see what is the "common practice" here, and
> > follow it. This requires a small research. What would be the most
> > popular Linux FS which does not support direct I/O? Can we check
> > what
> > it does?
>
>
Artem,
Am 20.08.2015 um 13:31 schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
> On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 11:00 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
>> On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>>> Currently UBIFS does not support direct IO, but some applications
>>> blindly use the O_DIRECT flag.
>>> Instead of failing
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 11:00 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
> On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> > Currently UBIFS does not support direct IO, but some applications
> > blindly use the O_DIRECT flag.
> > Instead of failing upon open() we can do better and fall back
> > to buffered
On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 22:35 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Currently UBIFS does not support direct IO, but some applications
> blindly use the O_DIRECT flag.
> Instead of failing upon open() we can do better and fall back
> to buffered IO.
>
> Cc: Dongsheng Yang
> Cc: dedeki...@gmail.com
>
On 08/20/2015 02:42 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Yang, (Sorry if I've used your last name lately)
Haha, that's fine. My friends in China all call me Dongsheng. :)
Am 20.08.2015 um 05:00 schrieb Dongsheng Yang:
On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Currently UBIFS does not
Yang, (Sorry if I've used your last name lately)
Am 20.08.2015 um 05:00 schrieb Dongsheng Yang:
> On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Currently UBIFS does not support direct IO, but some applications
>> blindly use the O_DIRECT flag.
>> Instead of failing upon open() we can do
On 08/20/2015 02:42 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Yang, (Sorry if I've used your last name lately)
Haha, that's fine. My friends in China all call me Dongsheng. :)
Am 20.08.2015 um 05:00 schrieb Dongsheng Yang:
On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Currently UBIFS does not
Yang, (Sorry if I've used your last name lately)
Am 20.08.2015 um 05:00 schrieb Dongsheng Yang:
On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Currently UBIFS does not support direct IO, but some applications
blindly use the O_DIRECT flag.
Instead of failing upon open() we can do better
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 11:00 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Currently UBIFS does not support direct IO, but some applications
blindly use the O_DIRECT flag.
Instead of failing upon open() we can do better and fall back
to buffered IO.
Artem,
Am 20.08.2015 um 13:31 schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 11:00 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Currently UBIFS does not support direct IO, but some applications
blindly use the O_DIRECT flag.
Instead of failing upon open()
On Wed, 2015-08-19 at 22:35 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Currently UBIFS does not support direct IO, but some applications
blindly use the O_DIRECT flag.
Instead of failing upon open() we can do better and fall back
to buffered IO.
Cc: Dongsheng Yang yangds.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
Cc:
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 13:40 +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Basically, we need to see what is the common practice here, and
follow it. This requires a small research. What would be the most
popular Linux FS which does not support direct I/O? Can we check
what
it does?
All popular
Pardon the innocent bystander's comment, but:
On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 01:40:02PM +0200, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Am 20.08.2015 um 13:31 schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
On Thu, 2015-08-20 at 11:00 +0800, Dongsheng Yang wrote:
On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Currently UBIFS does
On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Currently UBIFS does not support direct IO, but some applications
blindly use the O_DIRECT flag.
Instead of failing upon open() we can do better and fall back
to buffered IO.
H, to be honest, I am not sure we have to do it as Dave
Currently UBIFS does not support direct IO, but some applications
blindly use the O_DIRECT flag.
Instead of failing upon open() we can do better and fall back
to buffered IO.
Cc: Dongsheng Yang
Cc: dedeki...@gmail.com
Suggested-by: Dave Chinner
Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger
---
Currently UBIFS does not support direct IO, but some applications
blindly use the O_DIRECT flag.
Instead of failing upon open() we can do better and fall back
to buffered IO.
Cc: Dongsheng Yang yangds.f...@cn.fujitsu.com
Cc: dedeki...@gmail.com
Suggested-by: Dave Chinner da...@fromorbit.com
On 08/20/2015 04:35 AM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
Currently UBIFS does not support direct IO, but some applications
blindly use the O_DIRECT flag.
Instead of failing upon open() we can do better and fall back
to buffered IO.
H, to be honest, I am not sure we have to do it as Dave
56 matches
Mail list logo
