* Dan Williams <dan.j.williams(a)intel.com> wrote:
> That looks like a layering violation and a mistake to me. If we
> want to do direct (sector_t -> sector_t) IO, with no serialization
> worries, it should have its own (simple) API - which things like
> hierarchical RAID or RDMA APIs could use.
I'm wrapped around the idea that __pfn_t *is* that simple api for
the tiered storage driver use case. [...]
I agree. (see my previous mail)
[...] For RDMA I think we need struct page because I assume that
would be coordinated through a filesystem an truncate() is back in
So I don't think RDMA is necessarily special, it's just a weirdly
programmed DMA request:
- If it is used internally by an exclusively managed complex storage
driver, then it can use low level block APIs and pfn_t.
- If RDMA is exposed all the way to user-space (do we have such
APIs?), allowing users to initiate RDMA IO into user buffers, then
(the user visible) buffer needs struct page backing. (which in turn
will then at some lower level convert to pfns.)
That's true for both regular RAM pages and mmap()-ed persistent RAM
pages as well.