Re: [ANNOUNCE] DAXFS: A zero-copy, dmabuf-friendly filesystem for shared memory
Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> Mon, 26 Jan 2026 20:40:50 +0000
| Newsgroups | dev.linux.lists.multikernel,org.kernel.vger.linux-fsdevel,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Mon, Jan 26, 2026 at 11:48:20AM -0800, Cong Wang wrote: > Specifically for this scenario, struct inode is not compatible. This > could rule out a lot of existing filesystems, except read-only ones. I don't think you understand that there's a difference between *on disk* inode and *in core* inode. Compare and contrast struct ext2_inode and struct inode. > Now back to EROFS, it is still based on a block device, which > itself can't be shared among different kernels. ramdax is actually > a perfect example here, its label_area can't be shared among > different kernels. > > Let's take one step back: even if we really could share a device > with multiple kernels, it still could not share the memory footprint, > with DAX + EROFS, we would still get: > 1) Each kernel creates its own DAX mappings > 2) And faults pages independently > > There is no cross-kernel page sharing accounting. > > I hope this makes sense. No, it doesn't. I'm not suggesting that you use erofs unchanged, I'm suggesting that you modify erofs to support your needs.