Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Future direction of DAX
From: Dan Williams <hidden>
Date: 2017-01-18 06:25:42
Also in:
linux-block, linux-fsdevel, nvdimm
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:07 PM, [off-list ref] wrote:
On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 10:01:30PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
- Jan suggested [2] that we could use the radix tree as a cache to service DAX faults without needing to call into the filesystem. Are there any issues with this approach, and should we move forward with it as an optimization?Ahem. I believe I proposed this at last year's LSFMM. And I sent patches to start that work. And Dan blocked it. So I'm not terribly amused to see somebody else given credit for the idea.I "blocked" moving the phys to virt translation out of the driver since that mapping lifetime is device specific.The problem is that DAX currently assumes that there *is* a block driver, and it might be a char device or no device at all (the two examples I gave earlier).quoted
However, I think caching the file offset to physical sector/address result is a great idea.OK, great. The lifetime problem I think you care about (hotplug) can be handled by removing all the cached entries for every file on every file on that block device ... I know there were prototype patches for that; did they ever get merged?
No, they didn't.. The last review comment was from Al. He wanted the mechanism converted from explicit calls at del_gendisk() time into a notifier chain since it's not just filesystems that may want to register for a block-device end-of-life event. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>