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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:06:12AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> @@ -1658,14 +1658,35 @@ static int insert_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> unsigned long addr,
> if (!pte)
> goto out;
> retval = -EBUSY;
> - if (!pte_none(*pte))
> - goto out_unlock;
> +
On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 11:06:12AM -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> @@ -1658,14 +1658,35 @@ static int insert_pfn(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> unsigned long addr,
> if (!pte)
> goto out;
> retval = -EBUSY;
> - if (!pte_none(*pte))
> - goto out_unlock;
> +
To be able to use the common 4k zero page in DAX we need to have our PTE
fault path look more like our PMD fault path where a PTE entry can be
marked as dirty and writeable as it is first inserted rather than waiting
for a follow-up dax_pfn_mkwrite() => finish_mkwrite_fault() call.
Right now we
To be able to use the common 4k zero page in DAX we need to have our PTE
fault path look more like our PMD fault path where a PTE entry can be
marked as dirty and writeable as it is first inserted rather than waiting
for a follow-up dax_pfn_mkwrite() => finish_mkwrite_fault() call.
Right now we
14 matches
Mail list logo
