From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-x231.google.com (mail-oi0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c06::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ml01.01.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 05F4981E10 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:01:31 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-oi0-x231.google.com with SMTP id m124so1808418oif.1 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:01:31 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170118052533.GA18349@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20170114002008.GA25379@linux.intel.com> <20170118052533.GA18349@bombadil.infradead.org> From: Dan Williams Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:01:30 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Future direction of DAX List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-nvdimm-bounces@lists.01.org Sender: "Linux-nvdimm" To: willy@bombadil.infradead.org Cc: "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Linux MM , linux-fsdevel , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:25 PM, wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 05:20:08PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote: >> We still have a lot of work to do, though, and I'd like to propose a discussion >> around what features people would like to see enabled in the coming year as >> well as what what use cases their customers have that we might not be aware of. > > +1 to the discussion > >> - 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. However, I think caching the file offset to physical sector/address result is a great idea. _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-oi0-f53.google.com ([209.85.218.53]:33547 "EHLO mail-oi0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751805AbdARGBo (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2017 01:01:44 -0500 Received: by mail-oi0-f53.google.com with SMTP id w204so1826768oiw.0 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:01:36 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170118052533.GA18349@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20170114002008.GA25379@linux.intel.com> <20170118052533.GA18349@bombadil.infradead.org> From: Dan Williams Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:01:30 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Future direction of DAX To: willy@bombadil.infradead.org Cc: Ross Zwisler , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Linux MM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-block-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-block@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:25 PM, wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 05:20:08PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote: >> We still have a lot of work to do, though, and I'd like to propose a discussion >> around what features people would like to see enabled in the coming year as >> well as what what use cases their customers have that we might not be aware of. > > +1 to the discussion > >> - 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. However, I think caching the file offset to physical sector/address result is a great idea. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20170118052533.GA18349@bombadil.infradead.org> References: <20170114002008.GA25379@linux.intel.com> <20170118052533.GA18349@bombadil.infradead.org> From: Dan Williams Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:01:30 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Future direction of DAX To: willy@bombadil.infradead.org Cc: Ross Zwisler , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel , "linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org" , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Linux MM Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Tue, Jan 17, 2017 at 9:25 PM, wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 05:20:08PM -0700, Ross Zwisler wrote: >> We still have a lot of work to do, though, and I'd like to propose a discussion >> around what features people would like to see enabled in the coming year as >> well as what what use cases their customers have that we might not be aware of. > > +1 to the discussion > >> - 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. However, I think caching the file offset to physical sector/address result is a great idea. -- 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: email@kvack.org