From: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: make sure to invalidate pages if we fall back on buffered reads
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 09:13:36 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100614131336.GB2322@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100614081736.GA29239@infradead.org>
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 04:17:36AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 10:24:04AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > Since BTRFS can fallback on buffered reads after having done some direct reads,
> > we need to make sure to invalidate any pages that we may have read by doing
> > buffered IO. This shouldn't have shown up as a visible user problem, it's just
> > for correctness sake. Thanks,
>
> Everything else in direct I/O land uses invalidate_inode_pages2(_range),
> why not this one?
>
In __generic_file_aio_write if we fall back on buffered writes we call
invalidate_mapping_pages to invalidate the buffered range, so I just did that
here, is that acceptable?
> > loff_t *ppos = &iocb->ki_pos;
> > + bool invalidate = false;
> >
> > count = 0;
> > retval = generic_segment_checks(iov, &nr_segs, &count, VERIFY_WRITE);
> > @@ -1291,7 +1292,8 @@ generic_file_aio_read(struct kiocb *iocb, const struct iovec *iov,
> > iov, pos, nr_segs);
> > }
> > if (retval > 0) {
> > - *ppos = pos + retval;
> > + pos += retval;
> > + *ppos = pos;
> > count -= retval;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1307,6 +1309,7 @@ generic_file_aio_read(struct kiocb *iocb, const struct iovec *iov,
> > file_accessed(filp);
> > goto out;
> > }
> > + invalidate = true;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1343,6 +1346,10 @@ generic_file_aio_read(struct kiocb *iocb, const struct iovec *iov,
> > if (desc.count > 0)
> > break;
> > }
> > + if (invalidate && retval > 0)
> > + invalidate_mapping_pages(filp->f_mapping,
> > + pos >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT,
> > + (*ppos - 1) >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT);
>
> A little comment here would be surely useful. Telling that we want to
> get rid of the pages again if we were falling through from an attempted
> direct I/O read.
>
Will do. I'll send an updated patch when you answer my above question. Thanks
for the review.
Josef
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-06-14 13:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-06-08 14:24 [PATCH] fs: make sure to invalidate pages if we fall back on buffered reads Josef Bacik
2010-06-11 19:22 ` Jeff Moyer
2010-06-14 8:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-14 13:13 ` Josef Bacik [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100614131336.GB2322@localhost.localdomain \
--to=josef@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).