Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A2EFC43381 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 05:37:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21821222A1 for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 05:37:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726305AbfBPFhR (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Feb 2019 00:37:17 -0500 Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.129]:43799 "EHLO ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725794AbfBPFhQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 16 Feb 2019 00:37:16 -0500 Received: from ppp59-167-129-252.static.internode.on.net (HELO dastard) ([59.167.129.252]) by ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 16 Feb 2019 16:07:12 +1030 Received: from dave by dastard with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1gusf1-0000Dw-Je; Sat, 16 Feb 2019 16:37:11 +1100 Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2019 16:37:11 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: Dan Williams Cc: Matthew Wilcox , Jerome Glisse , Michal Hocko , lsf-pc@lists.linux-foundation.org, linux-xfs , linux-fsdevel , linux-ext4 , Linux Kernel Mailing List , linux-nvdimm Subject: Re: [Lsf-pc] [LSF/MM TOPIC] The end of the DAX experiment Message-ID: <20190216053711.GA14116@dastard> References: <20190214134622.GG4525@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20190214191013.GA3420@redhat.com> <20190214200840.GB12668@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:20:11PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 12:09 PM Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:31:24AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 11:10 AM Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > > I am just again working on my struct page mapping patchset as well as > > > > the generic page write protection that sits on top. I hope to be able > > > > to post the v2 in couple weeks. You can always look at my posting last > > > > year to see more details. > > > > > > Yes, I have that in mind as one of the contenders. However, it's not > > > clear to me that its a suitable fit for filesystem-reflink. Others > > > have floated the 'page proxy' idea, so it would be good to discuss the > > > merits of the general approaches. > > > > ... and my preferred option of putting pfn entries in the page cache. > > Another option to include the discussion. > > > Or is that what you meant by "page proxy"? > > Page proxy would be an object that a filesystem could allocate to > point back to a single physical 'struct page *'. The proxy would > contain an override for page->index. Needs to override page->mapping, potentially the page flags, what happens when someone takes a gup reference to the proxy structure, etc? Besides, didn't we discuss all this last year? how about we start with a summary of all the options considered last year, the pros and cons, etc, and then go from there? Regurgitating everything we've already talked about last year doesn't seem particularly useful to me... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com