linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] swapon(2): open swap with O_EXCL
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 02:25:21 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240428012521.GT2118490@ZenIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240427234623.GS2118490@ZenIV>

On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 12:46:23AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:

> Switching swap exclusion to O_EXCL could've been done back in 2003 or
> at any later point; it's just that swapon(2)/swapoff(2) is something that
> rarely gets a look...

BTW, a fun archaeological question: at which point has this
                /*
                 * Retrying may succeed; for example the folio may finish   
                 * writeback, or buffers may be cleaned.  This should not  
                 * happen very often; maybe we have old buffers attached to
                 * this blockdev's page cache and we're trying to change
                 * the block size?
                 */
                if (!try_to_free_buffers(folio)) {
                        end_block = ~0ULL;
                        goto unlock;
                }

in grow_dev_folio() (grow_dev_page() in earlier kernels) become unreachable?
I _think_ it was
commit fbc139f54fdb7edfec470421c2cc885d3796dfcd
Author: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@athlon.transmeta.com>
Date:   Mon Feb 4 20:19:55 2002 -0800

    v2.4.10.0.2 -> v2.4.10.0.3

      - more buffers-in-pagecache coherency

when set_blocksize() started to do
	sync_buffers(dev, 2);
	...
	invalidate_bdev(bdev, 1);
	truncate_inode_pages(bdev->bd_inode->i_mapping, 0);

at which point the "what if we'd found a page with attached buffers of the
wrong size?" should've become impossible.

Am I misreading that?

  reply	other threads:[~2024-04-28  1:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-04-27 21:09 [PATCHES][RFC] set_blocksize() rework Al Viro
2024-04-27 21:10 ` [PATCH 1/7] bcache_register(): don't bother with set_blocksize() Al Viro
2024-04-29  5:06   ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29  8:37   ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-27 21:10 ` [PATCH 2/7] pktcdvd: sort set_blocksize() calls out Al Viro
2024-04-29  5:07   ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29  8:38   ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-27 21:10 ` [PATCH 3/7] swapon(2)/swapoff(2): don't bother with block size Al Viro
2024-04-29  5:08   ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29  8:38   ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-27 21:11 ` [PATCH 4/7] swapon(2): open swap with O_EXCL Al Viro
2024-04-27 21:40   ` Linus Torvalds
2024-04-27 23:46     ` Al Viro
2024-04-28  1:25       ` Al Viro [this message]
2024-04-28 18:19       ` Al Viro
2024-04-28 18:46         ` Linus Torvalds
2024-04-28 19:07           ` Al Viro
2024-04-29  5:10             ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29  5:09   ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29  8:39   ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-27 21:11 ` [PATCH 5/7] swsusp: don't bother with setting block size Al Viro
2024-04-29  5:10   ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29  8:40   ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-27 21:12 ` [PATCH 6/7] btrfs_get_dev_args_from_path(): don't call set_blocksize() Al Viro
2024-04-29  5:11   ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29  8:40   ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-29 15:11   ` David Sterba
2024-04-30  2:05     ` Al Viro
2024-04-27 21:13 ` [PATCH 7/7] set_blocksize(): switch to passing struct file *, fail if it's not opened exclusive Al Viro
2024-04-29  5:12   ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29  8:42   ` Christian Brauner
2024-05-03  3:18 ` [PATCHES v2][RFC] set_blocksize() rework Al Viro
2024-05-03  4:17   ` [PATCH v2 1/9] bcache_register(): don't bother with set_blocksize() Al Viro
2024-05-03  4:17     ` [PATCH v2 2/9] pktcdvd: sort set_blocksize() calls out Al Viro
2024-05-03  4:17     ` [PATCH v2 3/9] swapon(2)/swapoff(2): don't bother with block size Al Viro
2024-05-03  4:17     ` [PATCH v2 4/9] swapon(2): open swap with O_EXCL Al Viro
2024-05-03  4:17     ` [PATCH v2 5/9] zram: don't bother with reopening - just use O_EXCL for open Al Viro
2024-05-03  4:17     ` [PATCH v2 6/9] swsusp: don't bother with setting block size Al Viro
2024-05-03  4:17     ` [PATCH v2 7/9] btrfs_get_bdev_and_sb(): call set_blocksize() only for exclusive opens Al Viro
2024-05-03  4:17     ` [PATCH v2 8/9] set_blocksize(): switch to passing struct file * Al Viro
2024-05-03  4:17     ` [PATCH v2 9/9] make set_blocksize() fail unless block device is opened exclusive Al Viro

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=20240428012521.GT2118490@ZenIV \
    --to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
    --cc=brauner@kernel.org \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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).