From: Brendan Hide Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/5] btrfs: enable swap file support Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2014 07:55:34 +0200 Message-ID: <547419D6.40905@swiftspirit.co.za> References: <20141121180045.GF8568@twin.jikos.cz> <20141122200357.GA15189@mew> <20141124220302.GA5785@mew.dhcp4.washington.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Filipe David Manana , David Sterba , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Viro , Andrew Morton , Chris Mason , Josef Bacik , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, Trond Myklebust , Mel Gorman To: Omar Sandoval Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20141124220302.GA5785@mew.dhcp4.washington.edu> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org On 2014/11/25 00:03, Omar Sandoval wrote: > [snip] > > The snapshot issue is a little tricker to resolve. I see a few options: > > 1. Just do the COW and hope for the best > 2. As part of btrfs_swap_activate, COW any shared extents. If a snapshot > happens while a swap file is active, we'll fall back to 1. > 3. Clobber any swap file extents which are in a snapshot, i.e., always use the > existing extent. > > I'm partial to 3, as it's the simplest approach, and I don't think it makes > much sense for a swap file to be in a snapshot anyways. I'd appreciate any > comments that anyone might have. > Personally, 3 seems pragmatic - but not necessarily "correct". :-/ -- __________ Brendan Hide http://swiftspirit.co.za/ http://www.webafrica.co.za/?AFF1E97 -- 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