linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Matthew Bobrowski <mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	tytso@mit.edu, jack@suse.cz, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	david@fromorbit.com, darrick.wong@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/6] ext4: introduce direct IO write path using iomap infrastructure
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 02:06:13 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190917090613.GC29487@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190916223741.GA5936@bobrowski>

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 08:37:41AM +1000, Matthew Bobrowski wrote:
> > Independent of the error return issue you probably want to split
> > modifying ext4_write_checks into a separate preparation patch.
> 
> Providing that there's no objections to introducing a possible performance
> change with this separate preparation patch (overhead of calling
> file_remove_privs/file_update_time twice), then I have no issues in doing so.

Well, we should avoid calling it twice.  But what caught my eye is that
the buffered I/O path also called this function, so we are changing it as
well here.  If that actually is safe (I didn't review these bits carefully
and don't know ext4 that well) the overall refactoring of the write
flow might belong into a separate prep patch (that is not relying
on ->direct_IO, the checks changes, etc).

> > > +	if (!inode_trylock(inode)) {
> > > +		if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT)
> > > +			return -EAGAIN;
> > > +		inode_lock(inode);
> > > +	}
> > > +
> > > +	if (!ext4_dio_checks(inode)) {
> > > +		inode_unlock(inode);
> > > +		/*
> > > +		 * Fallback to buffered IO if the operation on the
> > > +		 * inode is not supported by direct IO.
> > > +		 */
> > > +		return ext4_buffered_write_iter(iocb, from);
> > 
> > I think you want to lift the locking into the caller of this function
> > so that you don't have to unlock and relock for the buffered write
> > fallback.
> 
> I don't exactly know what you really mean by "lift the locking into the caller
> of this function". I'm interpreting that as moving the inode_unlock()
> operation into ext4_buffered_write_iter(), but I can't see how that would be
> any different from doing it directly here? Wouldn't this also run the risk of
> the locks becoming unbalanced as we'd need to add checks around whether the
> resource is being contended? Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here...

With that I mean to acquire the inode lock in ext4_file_write_iter
instead of the low-level buffered I/O or direct I/O routines.

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-09-17  9:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-09-12 11:03 [PATCH v3 0/6] ext4: port direct IO to iomap infrastructure Matthew Bobrowski
2019-09-12 11:03 ` [PATCH v3 1/6] ext4: introduce direct IO read path using " Matthew Bobrowski
2019-09-16 12:00   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-09-16 13:07     ` Matthew Bobrowski
2019-09-12 11:04 ` [PATCH v3 2/6] ext4: move inode extension/truncate code out from ext4_iomap_end() Matthew Bobrowski
2019-09-23 16:21   ` Jan Kara
2019-09-24  9:50     ` Matthew Bobrowski
2019-09-24 13:13     ` Jan Kara
2019-09-12 11:04 ` [PATCH v3 3/6] iomap: split size and error for iomap_dio_rw ->end_io Matthew Bobrowski
2019-09-12 11:04 ` [PATCH v3 4/6] ext4: reorder map.m_flags checks in ext4_iomap_begin() Matthew Bobrowski
2019-09-16 12:05   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-09-17 12:48     ` Matthew Bobrowski
2019-09-23 15:08   ` Jan Kara
2019-09-24  9:35     ` Matthew Bobrowski
2019-09-12 11:04 ` [PATCH v3 5/6] ext4: introduce direct IO write path using iomap infrastructure Matthew Bobrowski
2019-09-16  4:37   ` Ritesh Harjani
2019-09-16 10:14     ` Matthew Bobrowski
2019-09-16 12:12   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-09-16 22:37     ` Matthew Bobrowski
2019-09-17  9:00       ` Ritesh Harjani
2019-09-17  9:02         ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-09-17 10:12           ` Ritesh Harjani
2019-09-17 12:39           ` Matthew Bobrowski
2019-09-24 10:57         ` Jan Kara
2019-09-17  9:06       ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2019-09-17 11:31         ` Matthew Bobrowski
2019-09-20 13:24         ` Matthew Bobrowski
2019-09-23 21:10   ` Jan Kara
2019-09-24 10:29     ` Matthew Bobrowski
2019-09-24 14:13       ` Jan Kara
2019-09-25  7:14         ` Matthew Bobrowski
2019-09-25  8:40           ` Jan Kara
2019-09-12 11:05 ` [PATCH v3 6/6] ext4: cleanup legacy buffer_head direct IO code Matthew Bobrowski
2019-09-16 12:06   ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-09-16 12:53     ` Matthew Bobrowski

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=20190917090613.GC29487@infradead.org \
    --to=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
    --cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbobrowski@mbobrowski.org \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    /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).