From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751017AbaLPI4a (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:56:30 -0500 Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170]:52501 "EHLO mail-pd0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750789AbaLPI42 (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Dec 2014 03:56:28 -0500 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2014 00:56:24 -0800 From: Omar Sandoval To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Jan Kara , Alexander Viro , Andrew Morton , Trond Myklebust , David Sterba , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] swap: lock i_mutex for swap_writepage direct_IO Message-ID: <20141216085624.GA25256@mew> References: <20141215162705.GA23887@quack.suse.cz> <20141215165615.GA19041@infradead.org> <20141215221100.GA4637@mew> <20141216083543.GA32425@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141216083543.GA32425@infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:35:43AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 02:11:00PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > Ok, I got the swap code working with ->read_iter/->write_iter without > > too much trouble. I wanted to double check before I submit if there's > > any gotchas involved with adding the O_DIRECT flag to a file pointer > > after it has been opened -- swapon opens the swapfile before we know if > > we're using the SWP_FILE infrastructure, and we need to add O_DIRECT so > > ->{read,write}_iter use direct I/O, but we can't add O_DIRECT to the > > original open without excluding filesystems that support the old bmap > > path but not direct I/O. > > In general just adding O_DIRECT is a problem. However given that the > swap file is locked against any other access while in use it seems ok > in this particular case. Just make sure to clear it on swapoff, and > write a detailed comment explaining the situation. I'll admit that I'm a bit confused. I want to do this: diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c index 8798b2e..5145c09 100644 --- a/mm/swapfile.c +++ b/mm/swapfile.c @@ -1728,6 +1728,9 @@ static int setup_swap_extents(struct swap_info_struct *sis, sector_t *span) } if (mapping->a_ops->swap_activate) { + if (!mapping->a_ops->direct_IO) + return -EINVAL; + swap_file->f_flags |= O_DIRECT; ret = mapping->a_ops->swap_activate(sis, swap_file, span); if (!ret) { sis->flags |= SWP_FILE; This seems to be more or less equivalent to doing a fcntl(F_SETFL) to add the O_DIRECT flag to swap_file (which is a struct file *). Swapoff calls filp_close on swap_file, so I don't see why it's necessary to clear the flag. -- Omar